As an environmentalist and prime Green Party constituent, I have to say that I wish Ralph Nader would take a hike.  The longer the hike and shorter the pier, the better.

It is unbelievable that six years later, Nader can not admit to his mistakes in the 2000 presidential race.

Mr. Nader has a book and movie out, so he is making the rounds in the media and he is unapologetic.

The biggest issues facing the environment then and today are related to Oil.  Global Warming threatens catastrophic climate change that will disrupt human access to food and shelter while causing massive health issues.  And, we are running out of oil.  As this resource is depleted we can either let the oil multinational corporations maximize their profits to the bitter end with the support of our tax dollars and military might, or we can reduce the amount of energy we consume in preparation for a post-oil society.

Can a Green Party candidate be credible when he says that he sees no difference between Al Gore and George Bush on this, the most pressing environmental issue of the era?  Still?  Even after Inconvenient Truth?  Even after a war that only an Oil-man would persue?

Can Ralph Nader really not see a difference between Barbara Boxer, the current chair of the Senate Environment committee, and James Inhofe the former chair?  Besides the obvious… Boxer is a woman and James is not… there is the question of where they stand on Global Warming.  Well, Boxer has understood the issue for decades and fought to make it part of the mainstream.  Inhofe quotes fiction writers to support his argument that the whole thing is a hoax perpetrated by the likes of the Green Party.

Can he really not see the difference between Nancy Pelosi and Denis Hassert?  Besides the obvious… Hassert weighs considerably more than Pelosi… their difference in leading the house in discussion and action on Global Warming is huge.

To me, Ralph Nader looks like a fraud.  The Green Party can do better.

RE: •    Comment #52738 by Chris  on  2/09  at  3:52 pm — ” But the GOP wouldn’t have had a stealable margain if Nadar…so deluded he won’t admit it; sounds a lot like our current Bush.”

>>>> enough already, listen to yourself:

Gore’s loss is on Nader’s head because he didn’t leave a margin beyond what the GOP could steal? What’s to have stopped them from stealing “just enough” regardless? I’ll tell you what: Gore’s unwillingness to really fight for it — constitutional crisis be damned!

If yellow-belly Gore, his handlers and Keary’s too, for that matter, had simply found the guts to fight for the people who voted for them…but no; and some would say the fix was in from both sides. And, please do get a clue; Bush is simply the most useful fool the oligarchs could find and a fully tweaked puppet since the 911 coup. Nader’s out there fighting corps culture every day — fighting to expose and slay the soulless corporate paradigm of compromised bought and sold, bottom-line go for the gold.

The irony is that Nader is already so reviled, he’s got nothing to loose by supporting 911 Truth, except maybe his life — some of that government-issue anthrax is no doubt still out there. But, he can’t not know it was an inside job. Moreover, the 911 coup is an open secret in Washington, and the thoroughly infiltrated media has made it a third-rail issue…one word against the cover up and you’re media road kill. So now the scramble is on to rein in the madmen without blowing the cover up, triggering a massive constitutional crisis and a global financial meltdown that would send 80% of the oligarchs’ wealth up in smoke.

And there’s the guilty parties, vis-à-vis your world down the drain: The New World Oligarchy. This is all Iran-Contra legacy and with Gates at the Pentagon, you’d better get used to it. They’ll be chipping you as soon as they can get all their Capital Hill ducks in a row; that is if you survive their next false flag event.

Jefferson rally for Nader?  Get real, Knute Barde.

Ralph Nader is not part of the corrupt, corporate ruled two-party system.  He values protecting civil rights.

If anything, Kerry took away votes from Nader.  Ralph Nader is an honest and hardworking man.  He understands that the two-party system is flawed and that the only way to stop the corporate rule of the United States is to vote for an independant, innovative and progressive candidate.  I have meet him several times and I can tell you that he is devoted to protecting civil rights.  This man deserves so much more respect from the American people. 

It is very frusterating to hear Democrats blame Nader for Kerry’s loss of the presidency.  First, Nader was not welcome in the 2004 debate because he did not have enough of an influence on the voters.  If the Democrats are going to blame him for taking votes away from Kerry, than he obviously had a big enough influence.  Their statement is contradictory.  Second, instead of blaming Nader for Kerry’s loss, why don’t we blame Kerry himself?  He could have campaigned better.  It is Nader’s right to run for president. 

I watched the documentary “An Unresonable Man” and I am very surprised that he is not considered one of the greatest men of the 20th century.  He has done so much for the American Public.  He fought for the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Clean Air Act for example.  These are only his most famous cases.  This is a man who appreciates America, a man who values this country but is also able to see its flaws.  He sees the flaws within capitalism and the corporate rule of the country.  He sees the threat of big business and consumerism.  He sees how the U.S. has been poisened with materialism.  The reason why Nader does not have nearly as much support as Kerry or Bush is because he speaks out against the corruption of big business.  He is a threat to the selfish upper class.  Nader wants true civil rights.  And good for him.

proportional representation….yea. then we would truely find out the numbers behind the rhetoric,and the votes, and finally get things done.the republicrats wouldn’t stand a chance.

I wish we had proportional representation, so I could vote for whomever I actually liked.  But we have a winner-take-all political system that ensures that only two parties can be viable.  Voting for a third party candidate is almost as bad as not voting at all.  Ralph can philosophize as much as he wants, but he knew there was a good chance he would tilt the election to Bush.  He should take responsibility for that.  Moreover, he said in 2000 that there was no difference between Bush and Gore (tweedle dee and tweedle dum).  He should at least admit he was wrong about that.

Of course the election was stolen in 2000.  But the GOP wouldn’t have had a stealable margain if Nadar (Nadir?) that self-aggrandizing jackass hadn’t run.  And now he’s so deluded he won’t admit it; sounds a lot like our current Bush.

Lest any of you dimwits out there forget, I’m including only the highlights:

Al Gore was the first major party presidential candidate to have lost his home state since George McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972. (source: wikipedia)
Had Gore won Tennessee, he could have won the Presidential election without Florida.

http://cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html  - Did Nader cost Gore the election?

Florida voter errors cost Gore the election
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm

“However, the review of 171,908 ballots also reveals that voting mistakes by thousands of Democratic voters — errors that legally disqualified their ballots — probably cost former vice president Al Gore 15,000 to 25,000 votes.

Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg:

What must underlie petitioners’ entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I respectfully dissent.

Nader = Big Bush’s licking-boot member.

The simple fact is, every vote for a Green Party candidate is a vote for the Republicans. That’s why the Republicans have been such big boosters of the Green Party (to get them on the ballet, not to vote for them, of course). And all this “no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans” thinking is just garbage. Do you honestly think our nation and our world would be no different if Al Gore had been president the past six years, rather than Dubya? Don’t make me laugh! If it’s true that Nader’s supporters wouldn’t otherwise have voted at all (and that’s NOT true of all of them), then they have little to complain about. If you don’t vote, I don’t want to hear you whining about how things turn out. I don’t CARE if you think you have to vote for the lesser of two evils - if you don’t vote, then shut up. You’re a big part of the problem! All these right-wing fundamentalist extremists VOTE, which is why a minority of Americans controls the Republican Party and, until just recently, all three branches of our government (now we’re down to two… and counting).

Supreme Court was the cause of that effect in the first election then Diebold.  Who’s kidding who? chasbass.blogs.com

If Mr. Gore had ran on environmental issues is 2000 I might of voted for him.  Instead he kept talking about a lock box, so I voted Green.  Then voted Green again in 2004.  If people are still talking BS in 2008, I’ll vote Green again even if I have to write it in.  If one of the big two parties starts talking energy reduction and limiting pollution I might just might vote for them.

Siphoning, come on — he’s right, the election was stollen, and you know it. Moreover, Gore didn’t even win his home state — my only issue with Nader is that he really should lend his voice to 911Truth — the only truth strong enough to bring down the Strangelove madmen before they start WWIII.

Each voter, could have moved their hand, finger or whatever the case maybe, to the name of their choice. (except in diebold locations, where voting is an automatically done on your behalf.)

I love these candidates which won’t take responsibility for their own loss, but instead look to blame the entry of competition.

Nader, didn’t get his name on the ballot by whim. It took signatures and effort, dealing with multiple state laws just to have his name on the ballot. Even in the face of well financed legal efforts from Gore campaign to deny him ballot access in each state.

As I recall, Gore did not even win his home state? Why?

Why was Howard Dean chimed out of the race? for saying “Yeee haaa?”...at a campaign rally?
He was enthusiastic and rallying his supporters for god sakes? From first place ...to the dry John Kerry

Success.

Ah? Democratic party….There are 50% of potential voters, not even bothering, as they see voting as futile. Why do Democrats fail to excite 5-10% percent more of those untapped voters? Or is that expecting too much from them also.

Lets review some of the exciting candidates of recent years offered by the Democratic Party…. Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry.

Older people? Did you ever dream you’d see the day when the Republican party is viewed as populist? over Democrats? This is exactly what has happened.

Ralph is lot more like George Bush than most people would like to admit.Maybe in a different way but much alike.

Nader did not give the election to Bush. It was a stolen election in which Gore won. Nader was not the only independent candidate, only the most successful. The attacks on him are a way the entrenched oligarchy have of suppressing our right and ability to have the option of voting for anyone not chosen for us by the inner sanctums of the corporate party(s). If you buy into it and blame Nader for Bush, then you are saying we are politically imprisoned in that we are unable to act beyond the predetermined box of the corporate candidates. Get over it. We need to be able to run independent candidates or we need to forget the corrupt electoral process compeletely.

Siphoning votes brings up the image of some thief siphoning gas.  Receiving votes in an election does not constitute a criminal act.  If you apply any measure to Nader’s running other than the standard “how many votes can he get” you merely reflect a very undemocratic point of view: The only people who should run are those who fit within the existing system, no matter how corrupt, ineffective, or predictably status quo the system is.  Nader, and those who voted for him, owe no one an apology for excercising their constitutional rights.  The votes don’t belong to the candidates or parties before the election to be cashed in during the election.  We desperately need a left of center third party that is strong enough so that the two party can be forced to move away from trying to hug the center.  Jefferson would rally for Nader as a prime example of one who refuses to be ruled by the hand of the dead (the ghosts of two party democracy) and as one who tries to live up to the observation that a revolution every generation is a good thing.  This attitude of self-righteous entitlement that flows from the word “siphoning” makes a mockery of democracy.

I don’t think he felt he was siphoning anyone’s votes away. Many of us who voted for Nader in 2000 hadn’t voted in a presidential race after Clinton’s first-term. Gore seemed a poor option back in 2000, and I’m still unsure of him, though he’d likely get my vote now.

Since Washington D.C. doesn’t get any real representation in Congress, Nader is basically barred from being able to run for body. Public Citizen is practically his home, 24/7, and he’s accomplished probably more than most activists in many pieces of legislation. The Democrats failed themselves by having no real alternative to offer the public to the GOP.

Nonetheless, when you blame Ralph, you ignore all the irregularities at the polls then, and in every national election since that time. It’s a trend that is extremely dangerous and alien to our system (it being nationally coordinated).

We need our elections to be monitored by accredited observers from outside of the United States. America voted Al Gore into office, legally, and numerically. Traditionally, we’re supposed to defer the decision to the electoral college—why didn’t it happen? Because the Bush campaign filed a suit in the Supreme Court.

Nader’s reasons for siphoning votes from Democrats may have been everything he says, but he had to know he was giving the election to Bush.  Or to put it another way: he sacrificed the actual good of the country in order to put forth his vision of a theoretical good.  That may have been a rational trade off in his mind, but what about the rest of us?