Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 24, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

They Are Watching You

The Divide

Truthdig Bazaar
Whose Vote Counts?

Whose Vote Counts?

By Robert Richie and Steven Hill

more items

A/V Booth

Hello, Ralph Nader, We Are Anonymous

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 26, 2008

If you’ve never seen any of the anti-Scientology videos of “Anonymous,” this clip might seem a bit strange. While we would never compare Ralph Nader to the Church of Scientology, this spot-on parody is probably worth your 2 minutes and 21 seconds. Unless you’re one of those titans of industry who makes a million dollars a minute. Then it probably isn’t.

A warning to steadfast Nader supporters: The arguments presented in this clip are the same ones you’ve heard and rejected before. There’s no new ground broken here, except for the Anonymous angle.

For those not in the know, Anonymous is a decentralized group of people determined to make life miserable for the Church of Scientology. The video that inspired this Nader clip can be found below.

Message to Ralph Nader:

(via PoliticsTV)


Square, Site wide
Message to Scientology:

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, March 1, 2008 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

I was only curious if there was, then surprised that there was, a voice in north Texas that I could appreciate.  For me, it has been a vast and barren place.  I was struck by your questions about Nader’s deficiency.  Yeah, without a doubt looking for partisans in this sparse neck of the redneck Woods.  Misery loves company.

Report this

By lib in texas, March 1, 2008 at 7:50 am Link to this comment


Report this

By Jason_M, February 29, 2008 at 9:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just brilliant.  Anyone who thinks it doesn’t matter who is elected president isn’t paying attention.  Tell me, do you think it would have mattered of Humphrey had been elected in 1968 instead of Nixon? That era’s version of Nader supporters stayed home, in an election that despite being seen as Johnson’s poodle Humphrey ALMOST WON and would have, I am convinced, if the Puritan left had deigned to accept compromise.

Did Nader cost Gore the election?  As things turned out, I think it is undeniable that his candidacy—and his refusal to pull out of states that were close and back Gore, as I believe he said he would—was a deep wound and possibly a fatal one.

You can trash Gore all you want, but the 1968 dynamic was working in 2000—Gore wasn’t good enough to fully support—DESPITE his flaws.  He didn’t run a great campaign but, uh, he won the popular vote, now, didn’t he. 

As for stolen elections, you kids don’t know what a good stolen election looks like.  Take a look at Lyndon “Landslide” Johnson’s first election to the Senate.  OR for that matter, Kennedy’s 1960’s victory in Illinois, most likely compliments of Mayor John Daley.  Now folks knew how to steal elections in those days. 

So grow up, support Nader’s issues if you agree with them, and vote for the Democratic nominee…and put a little oomph into it, too.

Report this

By rsmatesic, February 29, 2008 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment

Part I

Nader haters, chill for a moment.  The evidence of Ralph’s true motives are all around you, but you’re ignoring it.  Just because it’s more fun to sling mud than to think doesn’t excuse you from the latter.  Why do you suppose he, who’s never managed to get more than 2.75% of the popular vote, and more recently less than 0.5%, and who’s now 74, keeps harping on Instant Runoff Voting, something which will not be enacted into law in his lifetime?  And what about his repeated references to studies showing that his entry in the 2000 race actually increased Gore’s vote total, because it forced Gore to start talking like a progressive, which brought more voters into Gore’s column than if Nader had not run?  Do these really sound like the sentiments of someone who expects to be elected, much less the lunatic ravings of a deranged spoiler?

Nader’s command of the American political system and mass media is far too savvy and sophisticated (and, seeing as how YOU haven’t spent the last 40 some years in Washington struggling with the corporate whores on Capitol Hill—and becoming one of the most famous and revered human beings on the planet in the process—maybe a tad more evolved than your own) to allow him the delusion that he stands a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the presidency. 

So what is he trying to do, and what would you do if you were him?  After fifteen years of unprecedented gains for workers and consumers, he had to stand by and watch while first Reagan and then the Bushes—with the willing complicity of vast numbers of Democrats, I might add, and little to no remediation by the great triangulator, Clinton–dismantled all that he had wrought.  And then after it dawned on the corporate-owned media that maybe this guy, and everything he stood for, wasn’t, um, “newsworthy”—whatever that means—he couldn’t get a hearing in the public forum, either (and until the Committee on Presidential Debates excluded him from the UMass auditorium in 2000, almost couldn’t get arrested).  And thus he and his agenda were simply removed, Soviet style, from the public record.  Consumer advocate, be gone!

So why doesn’t he help build a grass roots movement, you say, and get third party progressives elected at the state and local level, and then, and then . . .  what?  As if the two-party duopoly hasn’t snuffed out every nascent attempt at building a third party in this country since Reconstruction.  As long as Dems and Republicans control the state legislatures, and exert a de facto veto over any attempt at reforming ballot access laws and ending the practice of gerrymandering voting districts, third parties don’t have a chance.  Period.

I know this doesn’t come as welcome news to Eric Alterman, Todd Gitlin, and the other like-minded opinion mongers who spend their days fellating one another if not themselves in print, but wouldn’t know a paradigm shift if it bit them in the ass.  They’d rather whine that Nader is solely to blame for all of the misery of the last seven years, because, after all, THEY foresaw the theft of the 2000 election by the Republican party and the Supreme Court, and then 9/11, and its use as a cynical pretext for recasting the Middle East, destroying civil liberties at home, and shredding the constitution and international law, etc., etc.  Right, Eric/Todd, just like you foresaw all the Dems in Congress lining up to give Bush the authorization for war in Iraq, or the 145 House Dems and all but one Democratic Senator (bless you, Russ Feingold) who voted for the Patriot Act. Yeah, Alterman and Gitlin sure have all the answers.  Just wish they could have shared them with us back in 2000.

Report this

By rsmatesic, February 29, 2008 at 5:18 pm Link to this comment

Part II

Look, unlike the phonies who now claim that they foresaw the coming global warming crisis way back in the 1970s, Nader actually sees something, right now, that in terms of our democracy is just as lethal.  It’s the power of money, largely unregulated by the majority of working and middle class citizens, to manufacture and otherwise rig the political and social reality that we confront every day.  There isn’t a bone in Nader’s body that tells him that money, and the power that accompanies it, can be trusted to do anything other than co-opt or destroy every weaker entity in its march toward a perpetual plutocracy.  The victims, of course, are the rest of us, whose business interests don’t include the creation of a toxic biosphere, the commodification of health care, and 100 years of war over natural resources.

So don’t hate him just because he’s figured out the optimal way, for someone who’s (still) a cultural icon with a damning and convincing critique of our political malaise, of blowing a whistle.  He’s trying to get his agenda back on the table, and what’s so wrong about that?  The marketplace of ideas can’t work if the market is corrupted by a trust that decides which ideas are legitimate matters for debate.  And that is exactly what the Democrats and the Republicans, and their wealthy benefactors, have foisted on us. 

Our government is hopelessly corrupted by money, and the decisions that most intimately and fundamentally affect citizens—workers, consumers, soldiers, et al—are being made not by these folks, but by corporations and the wealthy elite.  Nader thinks if we’re not at the tipping point, we’re damn close.  If the Altermans and Gitlins of the world think they know better, and that we’re not at the dawn of an interminable reign of corporate domination of our political system, and the end of our little experiment with government BY THE PEOPLE, then they have to do a better job of refuting Nader’s critique than simply whining about the 2000 election.

Report this

By ed_tru_lib, February 29, 2008 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

Hopefully, but doubtfully, for the last time, I would like to point out to the ralphie-suckups out there who still delude themselves that “Gore lost the election himself yada yada etc etc”—Bush won New Hampshire by 1400 votes; Nader received more than 10,000. Is it remotely as out of touch with reality as Tom Cruise at his worst, to think at least 1400 Nader voters wouldn’t have voted for Gore?? Especially if the nadertraitor had shown even a little of, of all people, Pat Buchanan’s decency and patriotism (politics obviously aside). Buchanan saw his 1 1/2-2% in the polls was hurting Bush and said abt 2 weeks before the election vote for Bush if you’re not going to vote for me. If the egonader had shown a fraction of Buchanan’s class, Gore would have carried NH and FLORIDA WOULDN’T HAVE EVEN MATTERED, even though Gore probably would have carried there too.
Live with it leftyloons-Nader gave us Bush/Cheney/Rove/Iraq/Enron/etc etc and those of us who had Nader’s number in ‘00, or even long before (did he even bother to make a campaign appearance in ‘96, when he was ALSO the Green Party candidate?) also know how critical it is to permanently stop the extreme leftnut nonsense and elect the Democratic candidate this year. Otherwise we’ll all be jumping on & off couches soon to find a little clean air to breath.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 28, 2008 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

Are you in north Texass?

Report this

By lib in texas, February 28, 2008 at 4:46 pm Link to this comment

Where has Nader been the last seven years.  Any one hear him speaking out against the crime family in the WH??  I sure haven’t.  If the Demo’s are weak why wasn’t he telling us that.  Whats the point of running now, he could have been doing this after Bush got elected so-o now I am suspicious.

Report this

By truthreader3, February 28, 2008 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Although I am not registered, I have been following your writings for a while. You strike me as a smart and knowledgeable woman and I was baffled if that is the case then why on earth someone smart as you is supporting phony Obama?. The only explanation is
that your emotions clouded your judgement.
In my humble opinion as I said before all the candidates including your Obama are big Money/business shills and Nader is the only one who is talking about relevant issues without
beating around the bushes or using linguistics
acrobats like “what is the real meaning of “IS”??!!” or who is admiring or not admiring Reagan.
Please accept my sincere apology and I promise it
will not happen again.

Report this

By nrobi, February 28, 2008 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

Didn’t this happen before?  But, Ralph Nader, really wasn’t the cause of Al Gore losing the election against “the shrub.”  Should have been President Gore lost the election, because 5 people on the Supreme Court declared G.W. Bush the winner.  The only other candidate besides Ralph Nader that totally reflected my viewpoint on the Iraq War, Nafta, Cafta, the imperial presidency, and a host of other things was Dennis J. Kucinich.  There were no other progressives or liberals on the campaign trail that made the sensible solutions a possibility and would have made them a reality.  For Ralph Nader to stand for the presidency of the US, takes a heap of “guts” and a lot of ideals and a values system that is full of hope for this country.  Should we Americans listen to a third party or no party candidate?  You bet your sweet bippy! If we want change in this country, if we want a new way of dealing with centuries-long problems, then we must seriously consider that a candidate like Ralph Nader, who would change the face of politics in this country like never before.  I am all for third party candidates and no party candidates standing for the offices of the leaders of our country, as most of the ones who are doing the jobs right now have no idea of the struggles and trials of the poor and working class of this country. If the leaders of this country, were made to live like the poorest of our nation, without many of the perks and amenities, you can bet that a change would definitely be legislated immediately, without hesitation and would be veto-proof and made permanent.  I am whole-heartedly for the standing for president of any person who believes they can change the way that this government is run and administered. Please do not disparage any person who has a voice that will make people stand up and think about our country, “with liberty and justice for all.”  I, truly believe that the justice part of our country has been forgotten and the liberty part on behalf of the conglomerates and corporations and multinationals has been pushed to the forefront and we the people are the ones paying the price for supporting these unwieldy and anonymous corporations that do not pay taxes into the government coffers. If you care about America, give a care to listen to anyone with the heart and temerity to raise themselves up to the level of standing for the presidency of the US.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 28, 2008 at 10:37 am Link to this comment

If a frog had wings, my mom used to say, it wouldn’t bump its ass.  And 51% of the electing population would need to get their heads on straight.  What odds would you take on that happening?  ‘If’ is a really really big three-letter word.  That being the case, regardless of Nader’s still good ideas, I won’t risk another Republican regime. 

What ever has merit in Nader’s proposals has to be forced on the politicians to make happen.  Those are smaller battles to win and are more winnable.  If we want change, we have to make it happen in ways it can be made to happen.

Report this

By aimless, February 28, 2008 at 10:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The nattering Naderheads still don’t get it I’m afraid and are hell-bent on getting us another neocon in the White House so they can vote their “conscience”. 

Good old Ralph just likes to swan in at the last minute and grab attention instead of working all these years to help build up a legitimate third party.  It’s hard to figure out the dichotomy of the guy;  so smart and great with consumer protections and so incredibly pig-headed, egotistical and stupid about running for president. 

When I think about Supreme Court nominations under McCain I get a very sick feeling.

Report this

By Mark A. Goldman, February 28, 2008 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

I hope this Nader bashing continues long enough for the people who do it to realize how foolish it is to disparage what in their hearts they really want.  Look at this Nader speech that I found on YouTube, for example.  You might get a glimpse of what we cheat ourselves out of when we buy into less than intellectually honest arguments about how things are and how they could be if we only had our heads on straight:

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 28, 2008 at 4:39 am Link to this comment

Well yeah, it is hard to imagine a cypher making a dent in anything.  However, you are right about Republicans and Democrats.  But I happen to be a Democrat and I work to make the party better and by doing that make the country better.  In this two-party system anything else are pipe dreams.  And that is my attitude and I’m sticking to it.

Report this

By cyrena, February 27, 2008 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment

Well truthreader, your feeling missed on this one, so maybe you shouldn’t post any more of your ‘feelings’.

Just makes ya look stupid. Anyone who has frequented this blog before now, (we see you are unregistered) knows perfectly well that the race or gender of a presidential candidate has no bearing on my opinions.

I don’t care at all, what the ‘entity’ is, but rather what they use for brains and integrity.

Your comment to me clearly points to the fact that you have neither, or you wouldn’t have made the comment. This piece is about Nadar, and nobody has said anything about race.

Racists give themselves away every time. The dumber they are, the quicker we can figure it out.

Report this

By fazzaz31, February 27, 2008 at 8:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For the 2004 presidential election the recorded vote was:

Bush: 62,040,610 (50.73%) Electoral votes: 286 (53.2%)
Kerry: 59,028,439 (48.27%) Electoral votes: 251 (46.7%)

Ralph Nader / Peter Camejo
Independent: 463,655 (0.38%) Electoral votes: 0

Michael Badnarik / Richard Campagna
Libertarian: 397,265 (0.32%) Electoral votes: 0

SIXTEEN (16) other candidates, total:
363,579 (0.30%) Electoral votes: 0
Source:…l.php?f=0& off=0
Source: ...pular_vote.html

How did 1/3 of 1% of the popular vote with ZERO electoral votes make Nader a spoiler?

The 2000 election came in with roughly the same vote. As far as it goes, you can blame the District of Columbia: it has 3 electoral votes. Two votes were cast for Gore and the third vote was an ABSTENTION.

You really need to check your attitude. The Republicans suck at government, the Dems aren’t much better, but it isn’t Ralph’s fault they’re in charge.

Report this

By AG, February 27, 2008 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I guess you can’t teach an old yellow dog new tricks. By the way, you stole that flying fuck at at donut line from Kurt Vonnegut who probably would be more supportive of Nader than Obama.

Please, to all the Nader bashers, if you want to think that Nader had something to do with Gore’s loss (who couldn’t win his own state, who took Lieberman as VP, who didn’t speak about Global warming, who didn’t have the leadership to challenge the recount in Florida, who couldn’t win by overwhelming numbers against Bush), please take that talk to the creative writing class. This is supposedly a news site, and while opinions are welcome, changing of facts to meet your arguement should not be acceptable.

Reality is that neither Gore, Kerry, nor Obama represent my views on the war (immediate withdrawal from Iraq, issue an apology, take back as much of the billions of dollars going to the corrupt corporations that made money off our tax dollars and blood), universal heath care, and addressing corporate fraud/welfare.

These are the issues that would be discussed if there would an honest discussion. But is isn’t honest. The democrats are the ones squashing it. Be ready for another Charlie Brown, where the democratic party leadership will snatch away at the last minute anything that you think is being offered (like Lucy did to Charlie Brown with the football, time after time after time.)

Why didn’t Obama object when Kucinich was excluded from the debates? I guess some people just practice democratic process when it is convenient. - The Democratic Party Needs to find a brain, a heart, and some courage.

so it goes…

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 27, 2008 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

Who is blaming Nader for Gore’s loss?  Nader has his own problems and yes, he could not win.

Report this

By truthreader3, February 27, 2008 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ralph Nader speaks for the common man/woman. The American people wants out from the Iraq war, univerasal healthcare, living wages, no more globalization and exporting of jobs, secure
retirement, good viable public education, strong
viable labor unions and honest reponsible banks.
Ralph Nader have addressed all those issues.
Who from the other candidates who are all owned and controlled by big business/money addressed this
issues honestly and have direct solutions without
bullshiting and dancing around the bushes.
The answer is none

Cryna: I have feeling you will vote for any black entity even if it was even just a piece of an ggplant

Report this

By Max Shields, February 27, 2008 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment

Steven said “Obama said nothing about bombing innocent people. He said he would go after Al Qaeda (far from innocent), if & only if Pakistan didn’t do anything about them.”

That’s what Bush said (and continues to say).

Look, you got a blind eye for what Chomsky calls the non-people. You think that bombs dropped from on high only hit Al Qaeda. That’s the benign evil that keeps us what we’ve become: imperialist elitists.

Obama is the same as Hillary is the same as McCain is the same as Bush. There votes through the contortion of it all has enabled GWB to do EXACTLY what he’s doing. You ought to read a little history and get a good picture of US foreign policy (through Dem and Repub administrations) and how Obama’s so-called “change” doesn’t begin to change that narrative, in fact it supports it.

Dream on and believe. You can be sure US troops will continue to occupy hundreds of countries on hundreds of bases, immune to all laws - sovereign states are nothing to the US military. You want to believe in a difference - killing is killing regardless of the spin or the location. Open your eyes and you’ll see how the US will be in places toppling governments and intervening with force here and there. And yes, innocent people will die, children will loose their limbs, lives and parents. But these are the non-people that Obama/Hillary/McCain will never kill!?!

But you have a party you can cuddle with and pretend…sleep gentle one sleep.

Report this

By Bubba, February 27, 2008 at 10:57 am Link to this comment

Title says it all.

Report this

By DennisD, February 27, 2008 at 10:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Blaming Nader for Gore’s loss is pathetic. Gore was his own worst enemy, there was no there, there and it became plain enough for every voter to see once they looked.

That’s the only reason the Rhinestone Cowboy won. He was able to give the impression there was something there. He had Rove, Jeb, Diebold and ultimately the court system. His team was better, period. Not fair,  not just but it’s done just the same. It’s time to move on unless there’s a time machine available.

Nader won’t lose the election for any Dim candidate, the shame is he won’t win it. That will be the country’s loss.

Report this

By niloroth, February 27, 2008 at 9:08 am Link to this comment

lost cause there steven.  Doug is one of the nut cases who thinks that 9/11 was pulled off by bush and the jews.  forget trying to use any type of reasoning with him.

Report this

By dammit, February 27, 2008 at 7:38 am Link to this comment

Sorry about the inadvertent paste after “LOL!” 

The first part was really good, though.

Report this

By dammit, February 27, 2008 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

would have made great presidents in 2000.

Report this

By ThomasK, February 27, 2008 at 5:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Is truthdig’s posting of this video payback for Nader’s trouncing of Mr. Scheer in a recent audio debate? That debate was posted for a moment, then quickly scurried off into the archives. So, with Ralph, everything’s all about ‘ego’, but I’m sure that putting this video up comes from a very selfless and grown-up dedication to debate and the struggle for ‘Truth’.

This is a site created by and for those with 6 figure salary mentalities= Democrat.

Report this

By Steven, February 27, 2008 at 5:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“And, yes, they would prefer Obama because he has already shown that he will happily follow Condi Rice’s imperatives for bombing innocent villagers in Pakistan despite his qualifications in law which should tell him that it is illegal as well as immoral.”

Obama said nothing about bombing innocent people. He said he would go after Al Qaeda (far from innocent), if & only if Pakistan didn’t do anything about them. Al Qaeda, remember them? They were the people who attacked us on 9/11 & they were the ones who weren’t in Iraq. & they are the ones who are still hiding out in Pakistan.

Obama has his eyes on the ball. He knows Iraq is bullshit because he knows that the terrorist threat is not coming from Iraq, it is still festering in Afganistan & the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 27, 2008 at 4:57 am Link to this comment

Yes, cyrena, your point is loud, clear, and correct.  The LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows McCain well, yes well, ahead of Obama and Clinton, in that order.  The only good Republican is a dead Republican.  There is only one choice, a Democrat.  The Democratic convention will decide who that will be.  Not particularly enamored with either Obama or Clinton, but so far the people have chosen.  Whatever that outcome, it has to be better than another eight years of Republicanism.  Nader is delusional, always was and always will be.  And he will tip the balance even farther than the polls are showing right now and he will fall right into the drink again pulling us along with him, again.  This is a two-party system like it or not.  The Gore loss is old and pointless now. That kind of logic is called the fallacy of relevance.  Whether or not Gore was complicit in his own defeat is moot and kicking a dead dawg.  Yes, anybody can feel they can run for the White House, but it is ridiculous to suggest that anybody can win.  Check any nuthouse in America and you will find someone (probably several) who thinks they can run the White House and would run if given half a chance.  Look who is in there now!  No, it is becoming a choice between Nader(Republicans) and the Democrats.  You can live on a comb and the edge of handkerchief if you want to think of that as being the meaning of life, many live an even less paltry life, but that too is garbage disposal thinking. Just grind it up and flush it away with all the other cutsie flotsam.  What was Nader hedging for so long to wait to pole vault into the race?  Money honey.  He just doesn’t have it.  Why?  Where are his constituency dollars now?  They aren’t waiting in a bank somewhere collecting interest, are they?  And a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.  Y’all better believe it.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 27, 2008 at 3:02 am Link to this comment

That very same Rove is on friendly terms with Obama!

Report this

By troublesum, February 27, 2008 at 2:12 am Link to this comment

What kind of fucked up country are we living in when someone who wants a thousand years of war ( as far as I know Hitler is the only other political figure who ever spoke of a thousand year run) is being cheered in the streets, while someone who stands for everything which is good and decent is being vilified as a spoiler and has to fight to get on the ballot?

Report this

By troublesum, February 27, 2008 at 1:49 am Link to this comment

Very early on in an Obama administration he will have to prove his manhood by bombing some poor defenseless country back into the stone age; Iran will do as well as any other.  He has already said he wants to increase defense spending.  Then he’ll have to show his willingness to do business with wall street by turning social security over to them.  This will be done in the name of “change” and progress.  People who can’t see this coming are hopelessly naive and probably don’t deserve the right to vote.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 27, 2008 at 1:14 am Link to this comment

You thought the establishment weren’t backing the Democrats this time, troublesum? Ask whats-his-name, er, I mean, uhh, Mitt Romney.

And, yes, they would prefer Obama because he has already shown that he will happily follow Condi Rice’s imperatives for bombing innocent villagers in Pakistan despite his qualifications in law which should tell him that it is illegal as well as immoral.

The establishment are actually playing it fine this time because they know they can make as much profit out of climate change as the military-industrial complex. They only thing that troubles them is staying in control and above the proles and the peasants.

That is why they are in a quandary about Hillary. They thought that she was theirs but she is pushing “change” and equal rights far more than they would like to see happen. She wants revenge on them as well as on Bill, uhh.

Report this

By cyrena, February 27, 2008 at 1:08 am Link to this comment

Gore wasn’t just running against a ‘not too bright’ part-time, (and I would add NOVICE) public servant…(bush wasn’t even that…never a public servant) but rather a part-time PUBIC period, who managed to be sucked in by Rovarian tactics.

At the time, Nadar was an excellent advocate for the consumer, and he had been, for a long, long time. That doesn’t mean the the rouge and corporate establishment didn’t still hate him, just like they hated OSHA, and every other consumer protection law that Nadar ever helped user in.

And nowhere on the face of the earth, does the corptocracy hate the workings of Nadar more than in Texas. Do you need a reminder, that the assault of Dick Bush policies, as put into action by Rove, made Texas it’s home field? From there, (and then) it was apparently easy enough to fool the rest of America’s dummies into voting AGAINST an intelligent person, instead of supporting one.

Should we blame Gore for starting this war as well? Like blame him for being cheated out of the job, even though he won the popular vote?

I mean, why not? Can’t we blame him for losing, (even though he didn’t) and thereby blame him for the war, since if he had won, (which he did) he would be in office, and there would never have been a war?

This is the example of the kind of conversation that allowed the Dick Bush neocon coup to happen in the first place, and it’s apparently the same thing that has prevented the obvious solution, which has been to impeach the imperial bastards.

Now, who should we blame that on? Where’s ralph been?

We had a chance with Dennis Kucinich. Ya’ll blew it. Nadar can’t do it. Looks like everybody wants to blow it again.

I should add that it’s not ‘first time’ voters who are leading the support for Barack Obama, and you all really should wise up, so that at least you aren’t displaying the same ‘citizen mentality’ that put GWB into the White House.

One would guess that Scheer is certainly more ‘politically’ astute than that.

Report this

By troublesum, February 27, 2008 at 12:49 am Link to this comment

For the establishment Obama represents a welcome change from Bush’s Texas cowboy approach to running the empire.  He puts an innocent face on rape and pillage, and a black (or brown) one at that.  This is what he means by “change”.  He’s changing the face of slaughter, torture, war crimes, and corruption.  He’ll put a nice smile on it all.  He’ll do all the dirty work with a little more discretion.  People like Scheer will say, “what a guy!!”

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 27, 2008 at 12:39 am Link to this comment

Message from Ralph Nader…....  - an 18 minute interview with Riz Khan February 20, 2008

Report this

By troublesum, February 27, 2008 at 12:30 am Link to this comment

Why are progressives supporting Obama?  Bush just submitted the largest defense budget in history and Obama wants to increase it.  That’s all anyone needs to know about him.  What are you voting for a brown face?

Report this

By troublesum, February 27, 2008 at 12:21 am Link to this comment

“Everything in this world is upside-down.
  He who should be hanged in the public square
  is crowned emperor instead.
People stand and applaud.”


Report this

By Old Yellow Dog, February 27, 2008 at 12:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Those of you who are naive enough to believe that there is no difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party need to repeat a few grades in school.  If there is anybody…..absolutely anybody….out there who can make a case that this country would have been worse off today after seven years of Gore…..I want to hear it.

Idealism is a wonderful thing, but in practical reality, Ralph Nader provided the tiny wedge necessary to put Bush in the White House.  That has in turn permitted the unabated rape of the U.S. Treasury by corporate greed, the halting of stem cell research, the denial of global warming, and the bankrupt morality that permits torture.  We are fighting a completely ill advised and horrifyingly expensive war against a strawman opponent.  Iraq wasn’t the enemy…Al-Queda was.  Where the hell is bin-Laden after all this time?  Maybe he’s in New Orleans, as that is the one place that the federal government seemed afraid to go.
No difference?  What, are you a lunatic?  No, Democratic candidates do not equal Jesus on wheels, but they are also not a rapacious, amoral, bunch of chicken-hawk crooks who would like to make this a fascist country.
I will not forget, or forgive Ralph Nader, nor will I be silent while he runs again.  Sure, he has a right to run - if he feels like jeopardizing the country again by siphoning away well meaning votes that would otherwise support a candidate who can win and might make a decent president.
Please, Ralph, take a flying fuck at a rolling donut, and stay home.

Report this

By troublesum, February 27, 2008 at 12:10 am Link to this comment

It seems everybody but Gore was responsible for his losing the 2000 election.  He ran against a not too bright part time public servant who has trouble speaking coherent sentences.  One would expect Scheer to be a little more politically astute than the first time voters who are pep-rallying for Obama.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 26, 2008 at 10:11 pm Link to this comment

I hear that! You are very funny. LOL

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 26, 2008 at 9:45 pm Link to this comment

Why should anyone feel only establishment figures should run for office? You or I or Ralph Nader should feel as much freedom to run for the Whitehouse as anyone else. Has anyone noticed how incredibly wealth Al Gore has become after he played his glass jaw act in 2000?

Report this

By cyrena, February 26, 2008 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment

Excellent post, which I enjoyed as much as the video’s.

I must agree, anyone so out-of-touch with reality as to think that ralphie belongs in the white house, should be in the same house with him; the one with bars on the windows, rubber on the walls, and medications distributed on time.

Why can’t he just accept the contributions he has made in the past, and go sit his ass down somewhere?

Same question could be posed to many posters here.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 26, 2008 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment

Gore could have pushed his cause in FLorida, but he lost his courage or perhaps he had a deal arranged for him to act like a pulaka. I won’t blame Nader. It should be anybody’s right to run for President. Gore at any time could have taken off from Nader to increase his appeal to the working classes. One of the purposes of the Nader run was to push the Democratic Party toward a more populist stance. Speaking of Serbia, if the past is prologue, both Democratic candidates give every indication of making dangerous moves in the Balkans. Whether we are talking about the Republican line up or the Democratic one, it seems they want to give us WWIII whether we want it or not.

Report this

By ed_tru_lib, February 26, 2008 at 7:44 pm Link to this comment

Well this was funny, and its refreshing to see people who ADMIT to having supported the n-word in ‘00, also admitting how blindly stupid they were. This raving (ego)maniac ralph, who gave us the bush/enron/chaney/satan administration instead of Gore, more certainly than brother jed did, is actually going to try to do it to America & the world again.
Put the corvair nemesis on a polygraph and it might indicate he really beleives some of his own babbling, but that just proves he should grab Britney as his running mate right now, so she can be the balanced one who keeps him on the straight & narrow. This used to seem tragic to those of us who actually remember the 60s and nader as a true patriot & hero. But that has ALL long since been cancelled out. No doubt Benedict Arnold did a few worthwhile things in his earlier life too.
Anyone besides the ever-sensationalizing media who pays ANY attention to nader in a positive way deserves to be exiled to Serbia, where they can drive a Yugo, the only car ever to be worse than a corvair, but not as bad a pathetic excuse for what it could have been, as nader has become for what he once was. And I can’t beleive theres any Scientologist so out of touch with reality, as anyone, especially someone who considers him/herself to be progressive, who still thinks ralphie belongs in a white house, other than one with bars on the windows and rubber on the walls.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 26, 2008 at 7:44 pm Link to this comment

I don’t think Nader’s run in 2000 mattered in the final analysis. It was all up to Gore. It was his race to lose. Gore to a dive for the “syndicate”, and he has been well rewarded for it. I wish Scheer would drop his vendetta. It won’t matter all that much who wins the Presidency in 2008. As I have mentioned numerous times before every major candidate is some way owned by the high cabal. They are powerless to stop the dollar crash, and each one of them has designs on Eurasia. We will have more wars in the world. Russia will continue to be threatened by American ambitions. The police state will keep rolling on as there is a bipartisan agenda. The only thing that will stop this machine is if the American people admit that this government is no longer their own, and they have to stop supporting it through their taxes, and the recruitment of their children into its armies. Finding solutions through electoral politics is probably most effective at the local level, but to hope to change DC is folly.

Report this

sign up to get updates

Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.