Senator Ralph Nader of Connecticut? Maybe.

[WilliamPitt]

Next stop for Nader: US Senate from Connecticut?
By SUSAN HAIGH (AP) – 16 hours ago

WEST HARTFORD, Conn. — Ralph Nader says he wants to gauge the level of grass-roots support before deciding whether to make a bid to represent Connecticut in the Senate.

The 75-year-old consumer advocate and Connecticut native said Friday that he is "absorbing" feedback about a possible bid. He was appearing at a book signing at the Noah Webster Library in West Hartford.

The Connecticut Green Party is trying to persuade Nader to challenge Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd in the hotly contested 2010 Senate race. Nader was previously a Green Party presidential nominee.

The rest: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jvGky28IfeN9Eygc6iwhqYjriJMAD9C85A3G2

[katkat]

1. who knew, someone worse than LIEberman n/t

[stevedeshazer]

3. Shirley, you must be joking.

:rofl:

[mdmc]

19. not true

but feel free to get out and campaign for our man Joe!

[WeDidIt]

45. +1

He;d vote with the Republicans more often than Joe over his "principles" and overwhelming ego.

[intheflow]

57. What do you base that assumption on?

* He's against war.
* He supports labor.
* He supports having a strong social safety net.
* He is against corporate welfare.
* He has actively worked to protect consumers from corporations.

What do you think he agrees with Republicans about?

[NoSheep]

94. I don't even know why anyone would bother responding to such.

[WeDidIt]

103. Wow, Dennis Kucinich believes in al that, too

yet Kucinich ALWAYS votes with the Republicans on the big votes due to his sense of "principle".

Kucinich and Nader are of the same mold.

[intheflow]

110. You are on crack if you think Kucinich always votes with Republicans.

:wtf:

[WeDidIt]

113. HE does on the big votes

Voted with them on the Stimulus.

Voted with them on Health care.

That's how Kucinich rolls.

[SOS]

114. Kucinich voting record...

"Based on his voting record in Congress, the American Conservative Union gave Kucinich a conservative rating of 9.73%, and the liberal Americans for Democratic Action gave him a liberal rating of 95%.

ACU: 10%
ADA: 95%

Hardly "always".

[Lorien]

77. To a Republican, sure

but for those who care about traditional liberal platforms Nader is 1000x better than Lieberman.

[Echo In Light]

117. _

:wtf:

[safeinOhio]

2. His new novel is great

If only it could happen like that.

[mdmc]

20. i really need to pick it up

I am currently reading Seven Years in Tibet..

[tabasco]

4. If there's anything he can do to put a repuke in office...

Ralphie Boy will be happy to oblige.

[still_one]

5. Let's see if Nader can be a spoiler in Connecticut like he did in Florida /nt

[mdmc]

23. down with Democracy!

Only candidates that I think should run should should be allowed to! Only candidates that I think should receive votes should be allowed to court the voters!

[still_one]

99. I didn't say he couldn't, I just said the most he could accomplish is being a spoiler, because

like it or not, nader will NEVER get the independent or most of the Democratic vote

[mdmc]

108. if given a choice, i don't like it

peace and low stress..

[still_one]

109. When Ralph said there was not much difference between both parties, there was a basic truth in that

statement. The most glaring example was when Congress gave the President the power to declare war through the IWR, and the patriot act, however, even those issues, not every Democrat voted for them, while every republican, except perhaps Ron Paul voted with bush. That indicates there is at least some difference between the two parties, but the real question, is it enough to mater?

Right now Obama plans to send more troops to die in Afghanistan, will enough Democrats stop it. I doubt it. Another example is the healthcare reform bill which looks in serious trouble. Forgetting the merits of the bill itself, there is real doubt that anything will happen. Thus, even though you have "some" Democrats who stand for principles, there is not enough to mater, and thus the end result is that Nader's view that there is not much difference between the republicans and Democrats becomes reality

There is only one thing I can think of that could actually make a difference, and that is the Supreme Court under a Democrat verses a republican, but even that is becoming increasingly shaky

[swilton]

69. The Democratic Party Lost Florida

I supported Gore and I would support him now over Obama - but I don't buy that Nader made Gore lose in Florida.

The only vote that Gore lost was the one on the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, where was the Democratic Party when citizens of Florida protested in front of Congress that voters in Florida were disenfranchised? The Democratic Party did not stand behind Gore or the investigation of the 2000 Presidential Election. The Democratic Party's members in the House and Senate enabled Bush by supporting his disasterous policies - from Afghanistan to Iraq to the Patriot Act to the Supreme Court nominees - the list is endless. They continue to enable Bush by not having a full investigation of Bush policies a la torture, the Iraq War and other high crimes.

If Nader wants to run I say power to him - he'd get my vote.

[Lorien]

79. It was stolen in Florida. Without outright fraud Gore would have won hands

down. I personally witnessed the shenanigans at one minority precinct. It was hard to believe that I still lived in America after seeing what happened here.

[still_one]

97. Gore had the wrong advice. All he had to do was recount the WHOLE state, and that would

have ended it.

The worst part is they used the attorney who fought the government case against Microsoft. Why?

[still_one]

98. Knowing what I know now, and based on his choice of lieberman, I would NOT support Gore

Even the way he handled the recount, shows lack of judgement.

All he needed to do was recount the whole state, not cherry-pick

[berni_mccoy]

6. Better hope not.

[cali]

7. not a chance.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. That's it. I'm going on the wagon. No more crack for me!

For a moment, I thought I just read "Senator Ralph Nader of Connecticut".

Now, pink elephants, I could tolerate ...

--d!

[mmonk]

9. It would be better to challenge Lieberman.

[GreenPartyVoter]

32. Yeah, but Ralph's already pretty old and it's going to be awhile before ol' Joementum comes up for

election again.

[arcadian]

10. Why do alot of people on DU blame Nader for Gore's loss?

Last time I checked it's still legal for anybody to run for President provided they meet certain criteria.

[WilliamPitt]

11. *munch munch*

:popcorn:

[arcadian]

16. I wanted to make sure this got kicked til midnight tonight

I have to go out for the better part of the day. :rofl:

[tabasco]

12. And why do people deny it?

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Coalition breaking is a reality of modern politics.

[Umbral]

13. Because it's easier than admitting the truth. nt

[Xipe Totec]

28. And what is the truth? n/t

[Forkboy]

35. That the Dems started veering to the right in the 90's giving Nader the opening he took.

The argument is that had we not veered to the right that many Greens would have stayed Dems (I know this is true with a couple of friends, but as to whether it holds true on a larger scale I can't say). The counter argument is that Dems win by appealing to the swing voters, the squishy middle. The trouble is, by abandoning your left flank you leave it open for attack, which is fine if you replace it with loyal people...but that's not the case. The Dems are abandoning the left to appeal to people who will vote for them only when it's convenient for them to do so, like 2008. Given a strong Repub candidate many of these same people will leave the Dems again in a heartbeat. Then the Dems have no right flank and no left flank, and are open to attack from both sides, a position the Dems seem to crave putting themselves in.

My own feeling is that by staying true to the actual liberal ideals we espouse as Dems (or at least used to espouse) we will attract and hold more than enough of the left to counter losses from the center. The vast majority of the attacks on Dems from the left would be rendered moot as they co-opt more lefties into the mix. Instead of the DK/Obama nonsense both sides would be mostly on the same page (I'm not naive enough to think that all disagreements will end, but many of them will die down considerably). Instead, more and more the Dems act like the Left flank is a burden, all the while courting people who don't even share most of their ideology. It's the same short sightedness I watched develop in the 90's. If people want to say that Nader is to blame for all the world's ills since 2000 then they need to be honest enough with themselves to ask what created that environment that led to his run. His run didn't occur in a vacuum, and while the man has an ego it was a lot more than ego involved, and saying it's just that and that alone would be a colossal cop out.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

40. nicely said

Liberals are too afraid of being Liberals. The assumption is that we lose if we stay to the left, so we should move center when center is already way too far to the right. It only looks "center" because the right is off the charts. But who really knows how Liberals will fair should they espouse their ideology when in office? The few who do fair well, but on whole, we rarely put it to test.


Aside: Being from Chicago, our politicians ideals get enmeshed with Obama's agenda. I first noticed this during the run up to the election. My once very progressive congressional reps are compelled to support the President's every move. It's very disappointing...

[Xipe Totec]

74. Nader can expect the same kind of support that he gave

tit-for-tat, baby.

[Forkboy]

89. And how did that work out for the Dems?

[Xipe Totec]

46. Enjoy Nader's Pyhrric victory then

A fat lot of good it did for the rest of us.

[Forkboy]

88. Look up...the point is sailing over your head.

[NoSheep]

95. Your sig line seems to support Nader absolutely! I'm always blown away by that shit.

Irony. You gotta love it.

[patrice]

51. Well said, Forkboy!!

:applause:

Nader has genuine Green cred; why the hell don't we ally with them???

[Xipe Totec]

73. Look at the outcome

Are we better off today for it?

I don't think so.

He kicked us back to the XIXth century.

Now 1950 looks like progress.

Thanks a hell of a lot, Nader.

[Forkboy]

90. Yout attitude is what brought us to where we are today.

Thanks a hell of a lot, supposed Democrats.

[intheflow]

60. That was definitely a big part of the problems in 2000. n/t

[Xipe Totec]

75. Really?

If Janet Reno had looked the other way on the Elian Gonzalez affair, If she had caved in to the Right Wing Cuban nut jobs in Florida, Al Gore would be president today.

You have it all wrong. Al Gore lost, not because he leaned to the right, but because he did not lean far enough.

And Ralph Nader made it happen by enabling those right wing nut jobs.

Thanks for nothing.

[Forkboy]

91. Yes, really.

Are you really telling us that Gore didn't lean far enough to the Right? He picked fucking Lieberman

Your opening statement is pure nonsense. The election had nothing to do with Reno. Were you even involved in any of the campaigns? I was, and it was a non factor among all but a few hardcore lefties.

You seem unwilling, or unable, to address the point I made about what led to Nader's run. As expected. And this is why I have zero faith that the Democrats get it yet, and why I'm so cynical about our Party's future...we're still looking to blame others for our fuck ups. And I see us walking right down the same path as 96 and 2000. The burden was on us to learn....it's clear we didn't. So go ahead and blame others for our failure to grasp the situation. I'll pass, and blame those that deserve it for not paying attention. The Democrats.

[Ms. Toad]

14. Legal - yes.

But that doesn't mean he did not make a significant contribution to Gore's loss by siphoning votes off that would otherwise have been votes for Gore. I know a number of people who were organizers for Nader, who would have voted for Gore had Nader not been running.

If Nader really believed that there was no difference between Gore and Bush, then his actions were probably moral as well as legal. I happen to think there was a big difference between the two (and I think time has proven that to be true), and - at the time - believed it was wrong for Nader to run for president (not illegal - just wrong given the impact that I anticipated Bush would have on our country.)

That said, I do believe that in 2000 Nader sincerely believed he offered an alternative to two similar candidates. I still think that was poor judgment on his part, and I think that poor judgment came at a tremendous cost to the country. To run again in 2004, after four years of Bush...that is beyond poor judgment.

[arcadian]

15. Your notion is absurd.

Only Gore could have contributed to Gore's loss. Man, that George W. Bush certainly siphoned off a lot votes from Gore too. Most people on DU will admit that the 2000 election was stolen anyway. So which is it? Nader stole Gore's votes(as if they were rightfully his, the very notion flying in the face of what an election is all about anyway) or Bush stole the election outright and it really didn't matter.

[NJmaverick]

17. The only thing that was absurd was your incoherant rant

about how it wasn't Nader's FAULT because it was LEGAL. PUI is not a very good idea, IMO

[arcadian]

18. Lovely, what's next?

"Fuck Nader!" with fifty rofl emoticons?

[HERVEPA]

22. Can Do (and well deserved)

Fuck Nader
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[arcadian]

24. Channeling

Can you summon Ramtha for me as well? :rofl:

[G_j]

21. yes, and Nader forced people to vote against their own will, at gun point!

:sarcasm:

[hfojvt]

54. the hits just keep on coming

I guess it is okay to help elect Bush as long as you don't use guns to do it.

[Ms. Toad]

29. It is simple mathematics

Nader (and his supporters) knew he had absolutely zero chance to win, so his race was not about winning, it was about making a political statement that people are unhappy with the current choices. He also knew that the people who were unhappy and would vote for him were the ones who (some of them sincerely) believed Gore was not significantly different from Bush.

Had Nader not been in the race, Gore would have won. Every Nader supporter I have spoken would not have stayed home, and would not have voted for Bush. I am sure there are some exceptions, but in the large number of Nader supporters I know, there are none.

It was legal for Nader to be in the race, but he also is smart enough to know the consequences of being in the race (that he would receive votes that otherwise would have gone for Gore). He had the choice to make a political statement at the significant risk of drawing enough votes that would otherwise go to Gore (shifting the balance between the only two candidates who had any chance of winning), or to withdraw leaving (at worst) a choice between the lesser of two evils - and despite chatter to the contrary - Nader and his supporters knew very well which was the lesser of the two evils. His choice to remain in the race, particularly when it was very clear how close it would be, was very poor judgment.

Not illegal - but very poor judgment - and yes, ultimately resulted in Bush winning - and the next 8 years are a very unfortunate history.

[arcadian]

31. I thought Bush stole the election.

[Ms. Toad]

38. There were serious problems in Florida

but those were technical problems of the type that normally occur - they were more noticeable than usual (and had more impact on the outcome than usual) because the election was so close.

I don't personally believe the election was stolen - either in 2000 or 2004. (Now, I do believe the Supreme Court made a bad legal decision in 2000 - and should have stayed out of it to let the local political subdivisions finish counting and verifying the count.)

[G_j]

39. I guess all the purging of African American voters was normal too!

sheesh!
:facepalm:

http://www.legalright.com/WHISTLE.htm

Silence Of The Lambs:
The Election Story Never Told

Greg Palast
By Greg Palast

Here's how the president of the United States was elected: In the months leading up to the November balloting, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, ordered local elections supervisors to purge 64,000 voters from voter lists on the grounds that they were felons who were not entitled to vote in Florida. As it turns out, these voters weren't felons, or at least, only a very few were. However, the voters on this "scrub list" were, notably, African-American (about 54 percent), while most of the others wrongly barred from voting were white and Hispanic Democrats.

Beginning in November, this extraordinary news ran, as it should, on Page 1 of the country's leading paper. Unfortunately, it was in the wrong country: Britain. In the United States, it ran on page zero — that is, the story was not covered on the news pages. The theft of the presidential race in Florida also was given big television network coverage. But again, it was on the wrong continent: on BBC television, London.

Was this some off-the-wall story that the Brits misreported? A lawyer for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission called it the first hard evidence of a systematic attempt to disenfranchise black voters; the commission held dramatic hearings on the evidence. While the story was absent from America's news pages (except, I grant, a story in the Orlando Sentinel and another on C-Span), columnists for The New York Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post cited the story after seeing a U.S. version on the Internet magazine Salon.com. As the reporter on the story for Britain's Guardian newspaper (and its Sunday edition, The Observer) and for BBC television, I was interviewed on several American radio programs, generally "alternative" stations on the left side of the dial.

Interviewers invariably asked the same two questions, "Why was this story uncovered by a British reporter?" And, "Why was it published in and broadcast from Europe?"

..more..

[Ms. Toad]

49. Normaly doesn't mean good - but unfortunately yes.

Purging/making it difficult for African American voters to vote is unfortunately nearly as old as America is.

From the earliest days when voting by African Americans was flat out prohibited, to the literacy tests to minimize those who qualified to register, to gerrymandering districts to water down minority voting, to allocation of people to voting precincts/devices that are disproportionately high in minority neighborhoods, to the current trend to mandate definitive proof of citizenship - which a disproportionate number of elderly African American residents/poor of any race - particularly elderly find nearly impossible because of the lack of original records and/or people alive near their birth who can vouch for them in the absence of records.

All of it is shameful - but it is unfortunately a well-entrenched aspect of politics in the US - not something that cropped up out of the blue in the 2000 election.

[csziggy]

71. The voter purges were in the Florida newspapers before the election

Unfortunately, no one took it as seriously as it should have been. The fact that the purge lists were so erroneous that some of the county supervisors of elections refused to use them - including one county where the supervisor herself was on the purge list - was ignored by out of state media, but was reported in some Florida newspapers. Our local supervisor of elections tried to stop the purges but did not have the clout to keep Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush from pushing them through.

I would have to dig out my archives of that period, but I had saved articles prior to the election and knew there would be problems. Instead of pushing that point, Gore's legal team concentrated on hanging chads, the butterfly ballot, and minor election problems. The mainstream media pushed the same meme and the disenfrachised voters were ignored for the most part. Sure, there were investigations, but no one in the state elections office even got a slap on the hand for keeping legitimate voters from casting their votes.

Yes, Greg Palast brought the story to international prominence, but even with that, the US M$M is still ignoring it.

[Flaneur]

56. I thought a bunch of Democrats and independents voted for Bush.

[laughingliberal]

37. I think what I believed about it at the time

was that Bush did steal the election in Florida. The margin was close enough to allow a lot of underhanded goings-ons to hide Gore's victory. Nader garnered 94,000 votes in Florida. Had he not been in the race a significant number of those votes would, likely, have been cast for Gore. A winning margin that high would have been difficult to hide.

[hfojvt]

63. it's not even about Florida though

it's about New Hampshire, it's about Oregon, it's about Iowa, it's about Wisconsin, it's about Minnesota, it's about New Mexico, it's about Tennessee, states that Gore lost or just barely won where he had to devote resources and time that could have gone other places.

Gore lost New Hampshire by 7,211 votes or 1.27% and Nader took 3.91%. Was New Hampshire gonna be stolen anyway (as the argument goes about Florida). Change New Hampshire into the Gore column and Bush has 267 electoral votes to 270 for Gore and disaster is averted.

Gore won Iowa by 4,144 votes or .31% where Nader took 29,374
Gore won Wisconsin by 5,708 votes or .22% where Nader took 94,070
Gore won Minnesota by 58,607 votes or 2.4% where Nader took 126,696
Gore won New Mexico by 366 votes or .06% where Nader took 21,251
Gore won Oregon by 6,765 votes or .44% where Nader took 77,357
Gore lost Tennessee by 80,229 votes where Nader took 19,781 and was not really a factor, but Gore might have campaigned there or run more ads there if he was not worried about losing Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, Minnesota, New Hampshire or New Mexico.

Gore lost Nevada by 21,597 where Nader took 15,008. Not a difference maker, but without Nader, the Bush campaign might have worried more and devoted more resources to winning Nevada.

It also seemed that Nader spent far more time bashing Gore and Democrats than he did bashing Bush and Republicans, or at least the M$M reported it that way. Everywhere he went and gave a speech, the local news played a clip of Nader saying "Gore sucks. Gore is a liar. Don't vote for Gore." and who knows how much impact that had. But I can definitely say that it did not help to defeat George W. Bush.

Of course, just because I considered it of paramount importance to defeat George W. Bush, does not mean that Nader or Nader voters need to see things that way either in 2000, or now. Nader had every right to work to help elect George W. Bush, just like Ken Lay and Dick Cheney and George Will and Tony Snow and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and any other American citizen had that right. You just cannot do something like that and then try to hang onto your formerly well deserved status as a progressive icon.

[BreweryYardRat]

76. The thing is, the election wouldn't have been close enough for Bush to steal if Nader hadn't run.

Florida was only stolen because the margin was small enough to be ruled "too close to call" at the end of the night. That caused delay for a recount, and the Republicans used that time to start playing dirty tricks. Destroying ballots, mobbing the people who were conducting recounts, etc...

Most of the 75,000 votes Nader got would have gone to Gore.

Those votes would have been enough that nobody would have called for a recount in Florida. The state would have visibly been Gore's. No recount, no Republican dirty tricks, no 8 years of Bush.

[Kaleva]

27. From where Nader stands, Gore and Bush probably were similiar.

The farther away one is from a set of objects, the closer together they appear.

[Truth2Tell]

83. They look quite similar from where I stand as well. nt

[Luminous Animal]

81. What excuses do you make for the 300,000 Democratic Floridians

that voted for Bush?

How can you scapegoat Nader for that?

[Ms. Toad]

85. My problem is with Nader choosing to compete against Gore,

knowing full well that votes he received would have otherwise gone to Gore in a race everyone knew was close - when he knew he had absolutely no chance of winning. He put his desire to make a political statement above defeating Bush.

He could have chosen to get his name on the ballot in states that it was clear would go to either Bush or Gore, and I would have no problem with that choice. That would still have made the political statement he wanted to make. My problem is remaining/getting himself on the ballot in states it was crucial that Gore carry but which were (predictably) too close to call. My parents voted for Nader in a state that it was clear was going overwhelmingly for Bush - "trading" votes with a couple in a state that was too close to call. They (and their counterparts in state Gore could conceivably win) figured out how to make a statement without jeopardizing the outcome of the election. Nader could (and in my opinion should) have made similarly politically expedient choices about which states in which he should throw his hat into the ring so that he could make his statement without making it more likely that Bush would win.

There will always be "Democratic" Floridians who vote for the Republican candidate - the presence of a candidate more liberal than the Democratic candidate isn't going to impact that - and has nothing to do with Nader's deliberate choice to compete in a state where he knew that the votes he received would otherwise go to defeat Bush.

[Forkboy]

92. nader's run in 2000 as the only democratic thing about that whole election.

From grade school on we're told that anybody can be president in America. Why should any party base their run on what's best for one of the other parties involved? Do you think Nader should have waited until the odds were best for the Dems instead of the actual party he was in? Should Dems wait for the best situation for Repubs before running? Of course not. Why should the Greens do the same for Dems? The same Dems that have consistently walked away from left leaning positions over the years in favor of what's safe, in favor of what's "electable"?

I wasn't crazy that Nader ran, but anybody paying attention could see it coming a mile away. You can't piss on the Left and expect them to be there for you when you need their votes. The Right may be mindless, but the Left isn't. Why do you give a pass to the thousands of Dems that voted for Bush in Florida, but attack the one man who simply did what we were all told we could do...run for president? Nader was the only actual Democratic thing in this whole mess...yet he's the one who gets the scorn. Not Bush, not the Supreme Court, not the Republican's so-called riot (I'll post the pic if you've forgotten)...just Nader. Why aren't you bitching about the thousands of Dems that voted for Bush in Florida in 2000? Why aren't you bitching about the SCOTUS, which handed the Presidency to Bush without counting any of the votes, be it Gore's or Nader's or anyone else's. Why is that only Nader rises to the level of your scorn in the face of all the other factors involved? It's a fucking cop out, and helps the Dems in no way. If you truly care about the Dems than you'll think beyond your simplistic take on Nader and 2000.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you're going to blame Nader than you need to turn an eye inwards and look at the Democratic party and what it did to lead to Nader's run. If you can't do that then another Nader type run is a sure thing. If that concept bothers you then WAKE UP!

[Ms. Toad]

93. There were only two realistic possible outcomes

Bush wins or Gore wins.

The SCOTUS took an action that was consistent with the outcome (of the two possible outcomes) the majority of them preferred.
The Dems voting for Bush took an action that was consistent with the outcome (of the two possible outcomes) they preferred.
Nader, and those voting for him, took an action inconsistent with the outcome (of the two possible outcomes) they preferred.

SCOTUS isn't whining about why everyone blames them for Bush
The Dems who voted for Bush aren't whining about why everyone blames them for Bush
Only Nader and his supporters (mostly his supporters), whose actions were inconsistent with the outcome (of the two realistically possible outcomes) that they preferred, are whining about being blamed.

I don't have a problem with people voting for Bush (whatever their party affiliation) if that is who they support. I might wish they felt differently, but they are voting consistent with their beliefs.

As to SCOTUS - feel free to go back and reread my posts.

I do have a problem with people who didn't want Bush in office placing themselves on the ballot, or voting in a manner than is inconsistent with keeping Bush out of office, and then whining about being blamed - at least in part - for Bush being in office. Vote that way, if you truly believe that is the right thing to do. Put your self on the ballot if you truly believe that is the right thing to do. BUT recognize and accept responsibility for the predictable consequences of your actions (that being on the ballot/voting for Nader in states with close races, in whole or in part, tipped the electoral votes to Bush) and stop whining about others correctly pointing out what those consequences were.

Actions have consequences. If you (Nader/people who voted for Nader) aren't willing to accept responsibility for the consequences then perhaps you should rethink whether the action was wise in the first place.

[Luminous Animal]

100. I take responsibility for being a Green Party member

and voting for my candidate. What you don't understand is people voted for Nader because they did not want Bush or Gore in office. And I won't take responsibility for weak-kneed Dems who voted for the Iraq war, the PATRIOT act, the bankruptcy law fiasco, NAFTA, welfare reform, and the majority of Dems who sit by and say little or nothing about torture and rendition.

You can fool yourself and pretend that the mighty Bush made all of this happen or you can be honest with yourself and put admit that your party leaders were (and are) complicit in screwing us over.

[Raineyb]

105. Well said!

It's amazing how in the hunt to find someone to blame for 2000 the fingers get turned EVERYWHERE but at the Democratic party. Nader was under no more obligation to take the Democratic party's well being into consideration when he ran than the Republican party does. I don't see people blaming Democrats who voted for Bush, yet for some reason those who decided to vote Green because they didn't feel as though the Democratic party was representing them get the scorn and derision. It would appear that it's easier to blame those who voted Green than the ones who voted for Bush. Bullies tend to operate that way and to me, it feels like the DLC trying to bully the more progressive wing of the party.

[Generic Other]

118. +1

:kick:

[ipaint]

26. The two parties we have don't like anyone horning in on their action.

God forbid they actually point out the corporate support that keeps them free from challenges by any third party. Third parties may not win elections, although debate exposure did the trick for Ventura, they do bring important ideas to the table for discussion that are ignored by the two corporately well funded parties that now control most MSM. That kind of control is stifling for voters.

The two major parties made sure the bar was high enough that no third party could qualify to debate even though the majority of the electorate wanted third party participation in 2000. Both parties together pushed the league of women voters out of handling debates way back in 1988 in favor of strictly controlled corporate sponsored staged events.

People will eventually stop voting for the lesser of two evils especially when the lesser is not that much different policy wise. Either that or they will just stop voting.

[Moochy]

41. Cuz only Truth and Sunshine come from

Al From's organization. And if he or his scabrous DLC minions here say that Nader did it, he did.

[dmallind]

44. It's also still legal to accurately assess cause and effect isn't it?

Since when did people who blame Nader also try to argue that it was illegal for him to run?

Lethal to the interests of the country? Vain and pointless? Deliberately targeted to where it could damage Democrats? Yep - all accusations made, and all true. But not illegal.

Your man has a suspicious hint of straw.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. Because everybody left of center with a brain should've supported Gore

In Louisiana when David Duke ran for Governor everybody voted for Edwin Edwards who was widely known to be pretty corrupt. Doing otherwise would be extremely irresponsible as David Duke was far far worse and anybody with an ounce of sanity would cast their vote in a manner that best increases the chances of keeping someone like him out of office.

The same applies to 2000. Casting a vote for Gore even if you don't like him was casting a vote to keep a mental midget like George W Bush out out of the White House. Casting a vote for anybody else was playing Russian Roulette essentially and gambling that nothing like 9/11 or Katrina would happen while they are in office.

Lets say for argument's sake that Gore and Bush were both right of center (as Nader claimed they are) and essentially both Republicans. Your choice is then between a moderate Republican and a batshit crazy idiot far right Republican. That's an easy choice for me. If it were really a choice between two moderate Republicans then fine vote third party. Bush was dangerous and anybody who didn't realize that wasn't paying attention.

[hfojvt]

52. that is such a dumb argument

Nobody is saying that Nader did something illegal. They are saying that his legal action, which he had every right to do, resulted in the election of George W. Bush. These three things are not mutually exclusive.
1. It was legal
2. He had every right to do it
3. It resulted in the election of George W. Bush
4. The fact of #3 makes him one of the worlds biggest jerks.

[intheflow]

59. Not to mention, GORE WON!! n/t

[Lorien]

82. Scapegoating. They don't want to look like a conspiracy theorist by accepting

the fact that there was indeed a conspiracy to steal the election. I personally witnessed what the police did in one minority precinct here, so did many others, but only Greg Palast would write about it. The MSM wouldn't touch the topic because they don't want voters to see that there is someone behind the curtain. Democracy is pretty much dead imho.

[DJ13]

25. He's getting too old to play these games

[intheflow]

61. That was my thought, too. n/t

[natrat]

30. hmm dodd's a scumbag ,nader's a scumbag they are all kind of scummy

[SoCalDem]

33. We don't need anymore "aged" senators.. Old-thinking is what's been killing us

There is value in looking back to history, BUT it's also a good thing to have politicians who are young enough to understand the speed with which things move these days..

[katkat]

68. SoCalDem

Let me direct your attention to Mari333's ageism thread.

[marshall]

34. At least he doesn't have to pack any carpet bags and move there in order to run

Since he's a "native".

[safeinOhio]

36. Point being

every one here would agree more with Nader than Joe or the Dem running. He would be more like Bernie Sanders, who is a better progressive than almost any Democrat. I'd take 20 or 30 like them in a NY minute.
Hold your nose and buy his new novel and take a trip to heaven.

[Odin2005]

42. Oh sure, he wants to run against the LIBERAL senator and not Fuckwad Loserman!

FUCK NADER!!! :grr:

[Raineyb]

55. Someone did run against Loserman. And the Democrats in power backed Loserman when he went

third party. So why exactly should the Democrats free entitled to any loyalty?

[intheflow]

62. Dodd is also pretty bad.

Connecticut is a corporate haven. He's all in tight with the banking industry assholes, he was all about the bailout to help his buddies out while fucking over the rest of us.

[anonymous171]

43. I hope he does it and wins. It would be a good way for him to make himself useful. nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

47. I'd like to see Nader in the Senate, actually.

God knows we could use some more actual Democratic votes there. And while Dodd isn't as repulsive as Lieberdouche, he's clearly compromised when it comes to the banking and insurance industries, and its those corporations that need strong resistance from our side of the aisle right now.

[katkat]

70. Sebastion

What makes you think Ralph would be a Democratic vote? I think he'd do everything he could to derail Democratic bills because they weren't "pure" enough, just as he derailed Gore's election.

It's an insult to Bernie Sanders, who is a good guy trying get good legislation through, to compare him to Nader.

[Sebastian Doyle]

72. Bernie Sanders has limits to what he will compromise on

the most recent example being that he won't vote for the Senate "health care reform" bill, if there's no public option in it. And he's not the only one.

[katkat]

101. Good for Bernie

Nader, however, probably wouldn't vote for anything.

Drawing a line in the sand at a public option is a good place to be.

[patrice]

50. I am for this. Great stage for Nader's voice on the issues!!

[unblock]

53. freshman senator at age 76? no thanks.

even if he could win, realistically, this would mean an open seat 6 years later.

most likely, thouse, it would simply mean a republican win in 2010.


i love most of what nader has to say, but his political actions are usually counterproductive.

[katkat]

102. 76

My grandma lived to be 94. My great aunt is 96. And Ralphie looks like he practices life-prolonging calorie restriction.

Meanwhile I guess your candidates with young as a qualification come with a guarantee that they won't get cancer or have a heart attack or be run over by a bus. How do I get me one of those guarantees?

[unblock]

104. who said anything about guarantees?

first, when it comes to mortality, no one talks guarantees; it's all probability and actuarial tables are more appropriate.

second, when it comes to senatorial politics, there are only two things that really count in terms of influence:
(a) presidential potential and
(b) longevity (seniority) in the senate

nader at this point has no realistic potential for either, so i'd prefer someone with at least one of the two as my senator.
especially if we're talking about replacing dodd, who is for the most part a fine senator (unlike lieberman!)

[katkat]

112. age

Maybe you'd like hiring or electing anyone over 40 to be illegal? I mean, intelligence, common sense, empathy, principles, those are nothing compared to "presidential potential" and "longevity."

[unblock]

116. hmm, i don't want a certain 76-year old representing me, therefore i want to ban hiring 40-year olds

way to completely make crap up. no, i'm not in favor of age discrimination in hiring, nor do i think age should be a legal bar to elective office. i would certainly have voted for ted kennedy at any age, for instance, as he had all the attributes we've discussed except future presidential potential, but he obviously had seniority and was remarkably effective.

of course i want my senators and representatives to have other worthy attributes, but without senatorial clout and power, they would be ineffective. i want my them to vote well AND be effective.

nader's a firebrand and shows no interest or ability to put together winning coalitions, so i don't see him as effective at all in the clubby senate.

[bridgit]

58. Ralph should have had this little baby step idea, oh, I dunno, maybe 11-12 years ago?

:kick:

[David Zephyr]

64. It's a free country. Chris Dodd brought a lot of this on himself.

The voters in Connecticut (in poll after poll) are disgusted with Chris Dodd. That mortgage shit was slimy and it's up to him to square it with the voters who are in the middle of a housing meltdown and upside down on their own mortgages.

If Ralph runs, there's no doubt that he would hurt Dodd in the General Election. If Ralph declares, it may be time for Dodd to step aside and let a new Democrat run in the General Election.

Dodd's problems are not Ralph Nader, Dodd's problems are Dodd.

[CTLawGuy]

66. bye bye Dodd =

bye bye 60 senate votes and bye bye any chance of passing legislation. I wouldn't be so glib about this.

[CTLawGuy]

65. say hello to Senator Simmons :(

sigh.

[Downtown Hound]

67. Great! Looks like Connecticut can have another Republican whore masquerading as a progressive!

And for all you Nader cultists about to jump on me, I'm just going to ask you to explain right now how you justify supporting a man who does absolutely nothing in between elections but sit on his ass, and then takes Republican money and campaign support in an effort to unseat Democrats whenever an election rolls around and touts himself as the true progressive. God, that man disgusts me with his hypocrisy.

Fuck Nader. Republican sell out and so totally yesterday's news. The only decent thing left for him to do is die or just go away.

[anonymous171]

78. Maybe democrats could try and outflank him by being more progressive than him?

Just a thought.

[Raineyb]

84. THAT would be much more constructive than acting like politicians are entitled to their jobs without

competition and bashing those who would dare run against them.

What are the odds that will happen?

I'm not holding my breath on it.

[Downtown Hound]

86. As far as I'm concerned, most of them already are. n/t

[anonymous171]

87. LOL Nice one. nt

[Fading Captain]

96. Dittocrats sucks balls

Legislate like a Democrat and not a Republican, and there is no issue.

[Downtown Hound]

107. "Dittocrats suck balls."

So do blind Nader cultists that preach the same tired bullshit year after year.

[mattclearing]

80. Wish he'd done this 40 years ago. nt

[Quantess]

106. That'd be cool.

An office more realistic for him to attain.
:thumbsup:

[proud patriot]

111. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks

'bout time Ralph ! IMHO

[WI_DEM]

115. Great! If Nader runs against Dodd he will guarantee Dodd's defeat and another GOP Senator.

Just like he helped give us George W. Bush because he didn't see any difference between Gore and Bush.