He's killed 3531 soldiers
And what does he have to show for it? Nothing.
shareThis really doesn't even merit a reply, but you've ticked me off.
If we're going to blame Nader rather than those who really deserve the blame, then we might as well blame ourselves too, since there hasn't been a strong enough opposition to this war to have the troops recalled, and since our tax dollars are supporting it. Typical anyone-but-Bush comment- you're using meaningless rhetoric to vindicate your party (I presume you're Democrat) against Nader, and strangely enough, absolving Bush and his staff of any of the blame. Way to go.
Hoping for the rush of some experience that could elevate me Up Above the Daily Hum
What's you're point? I should have been strongly against this war? I was. I should have written my senators and representatives? I did, they voted against it, it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Should I have stopped paying taxes and been thrown in jail? That wouldn't have changed anything eithera.
Point is, Nader deliberately siphoned off votes from the more competent politician and got an incompetent drunken coke head in the White House who's carried out the wishes of his dad's friends. Just like we knew he would in 2000.
Now, 7 years later, he has nothing to show for it except the sorry state of our country.
My point is that if you're looking to place blame on an indirect source, one can be found in the complacency of the American citizenry. How many Democrats failed to vote against the war? How many of their constituents did not write letters and sign petitions? Why have we allowed Bush/Cheney, the big-oil execs and the neo-cons to get away with this? I don't care what you did personally- all I know is that Nader tries to get people to become more aware of their individual role in the political process, and that by and large, Americans are resistant to that message. In my opinion, the U.S. isn't worthy of a man like Nader for President.
He didn't deliberately siphon off votes- his run in 2000 was a direct challenge to Democrats to take a strong stand on the important issues. He hoped to force Gore to acknowledge and address many issues by positioning himself as a threat to the Democratic Party, one that they'd have to react to. They did react, but in the most cowardly, worst possible way- they spent money and efforts demonizing him, rather than attempt to make Gore more appealing to voters. You can't blame anyone besides the Democrats for Gore's loss in 2000. Sorry, but you really just can't. It honestly seemed to me that they weren't even trying to win that election.
And Nader does have something to show for it- he's exposed a lot of corruption in the electoral process. He's published books since his first run, such as Crashing the Party, which concerned citizens like yourself should read. You can't blame him if the media doesn't think that this corruption is newsworthy, and if Americans are just too complacent to educate themselves about it.
If you're looking for a scapegoat for the loss of American lives, then I suggest you try the whole damn system.
Hoping for the rush of some experience that could elevate me Up Above the Daily Hum
"Nader deliberately siphoned off votes from the more competent politician".
I'm confused. Gore might be more competent than Dubya but even Barney the dinosaur would be more competent than the Smirking Chimp. Al Gore was so "competent" in 2000 that, despite being the then vice-President to a popular President, he somehow contrived to lose his home state!? He was so "competent" that he failed lay a knock out blow on a frat boy fraud like George W. in any of the TV debates.
Additionally, cast your mind back to Gore's vice-Presidential pick. Yes, it was the gung-ho hawk, the back-stabbing snake that is Joe Lieberman. If Gore had (offically) won - if the election hadn't been stolen by the GOP's henchmen - then Lieberman would be in the White House right now and you'd have voted to put him there.
The Democrats' bullying helped flatten the Nader vote in 2004... and the Democrats *still* lost. After a four year demonstration of why Dubya shouldn't be allowed even near the White House, the Democrats couldn't win... again. Who was to blame, then? (Hint: 2000 and 2004 were stolen. Yet, with a clown like Dubya as the alternative, the tens of thosands of votes lost, "miscounted" and black voters being challenged and harassed still shouldn't have stopped a Democratic breeze to victory).
The point of Nader and/or The Greens is to put pressure on the Democrats; to try to keep them on a more progressive line. Clinton, Obama, Biden and the rest won't respond without the threat of action. Still, you can always give your vote to the Democrats for free but don't be too suprised when they offer you the same kind of rubbish as the GOP. The only difference will be the warmer smile rather than the gormless smirk.
Honestly, it's that kind of "you killed 3,000 soldiers" crap that explains why Dems are in the toilet too much of the time anyway; it's that irrationality mixed with a victim mentality mixed with passivity, the softheadedness that keeps people from believing Democrats are rational and adult enough to run a country, even though people overwhelmingly favor Dems when you go issue by issue.
Yeah, sure. Nader just waved his hands a bit, and all those voters were helpless. Just squirming on the floor like beetles.
Ralph Nader did not cause anybody to lose a damn election. If you want to look for a cause, start with all the many thousands of registered Dems who voted Republican in either 2000 or 2004. Or with Democratic strategy that included halfhearted refutations of the Swift Boat garbage. Actually, I take that back: Start with a willfully ignorant, passive populus that is too stupid to see through stuff like the Swift Boat crap, and instead blames John Kerry for "not inspiring us." Because, again, we're all just passive little victims, waiting for somebody to make us do something. Sheesh. This country gets what it deserves.
Gore and Michael Moore are certainly interesting people, I liked each of their movies, I believe antics are capable of selling ideology and Gore used as many antics as Moore did, except he didn't make them funny so people take Gore's numbers more seriously.
However, to call Gore a more competent politician, that's just weewee, if he had been a competent politician, he would have convinced brought democrat numbers to 60% instead of fine hair of popularity over Bush. Elections can only be "rigged" or "stolen" when things are close. The Dems had all the popular "mouth" support but WERE UNABLE TO TRANSLATE POPULARITY INTO VOTES. That is the true required talent of a politician the ability to transform an idea into votes. The democrats have been dumb and weak and lacking in moral integrity. They are nothing. DEMS NEED A LEADER, NOT JUST AT ELECTION TIME BUT TO RUN THE FRICKIN PARTY, they need to get their act together because it's their cowardice and dumbness and pettiness that keep the REPs in control. That needs to change and if the DEMS aren't willing to change, then people need to dump them in do something new.
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
Was this post started by Earache Whiney-boy (Alterman)?!?
(guffaw guffaw)
"POWER TO THE PEOPLE WHO PUNISH BAD CINEMA!!!"