Nader 08

[cryptique]

Here you go, Crypt - more examples of just how far apart the democrats and republicans are on the issues:

 

 

http://www.therealdifference.org/print.html

That's right ... link to a Green Party website.

 

You slay me. Really you do.

 

Also, I think there may have been some creative editing of a post or two back near the beginning of this thread to make it seem like the argument was less about presidential candidates than about the parties themselves. Whatever. I stand by my arguments regardless.

[JerseyMike]

His ego is getting in the way of his motives

 

I couldn't agree more. If Nader is so concerned with changing politics in America, why doesn't he run for the Senate or the Congress, where he could make a real difference.

[Good Old Neon]

That's right ... link to a Green Party website.

 

You slay me. Really you do.

 

Also, I think there may have been some creative editing of a post or two back near the beginning of this thread to make it seem like the argument was less about presidential candidates than about the parties themselves. Whatever. I stand by my arguments regardless.

 

Knock yourself out and have a good laugh - I

[embiggen]

I couldn't agree more. If Nader is so concerned with changing politics in America, why doesn't he run for the Senate or the Congress, where he could make a real difference.

 

 

totally agree with you! he could accomplish so much more in the Senate or Congress.

[Good Old Neon]

totally agree with you! he could accomplish so much more in the Senate or Congress.

 

How

[MrRain422]

I think Nader is most effective as an advocate and activist. His strengths don't coincide with running for office.

 

I mean, I would argue that for all of the people who think the environment is an important issue, Nader did them a great service by "screwing up" the '00 election.

 

Are you serious? Al Gore was the single strongest environmental activist in our federal government.

 

He is doing what all 3rd parties hope to do. Have some sort of effect on the outcome that way the major party that they "hurt" are forced to take their issues on.

 

Well, first off, that was NOT his goal in 2000. In 2000, the goal was to get 5% of the vote so the Green Party could get federal funding, and he failed at this goal.

 

And on the issues front, he's failed there as well. Which issues has he successfully forced the major parties to address by running?

 

I suppose in order to buy into the "miserable failure" bit of your post, you have to believe that McCain is any more or less likely to be a great (or terrible) president than Obama or Clinton, something I'm not sure I believe.

 

No, that's not true at all. I just have to believe that any gives a rat's ass about Ralph Nader anymore and so his running for office won't effect a damn thing. He's been a miserable failure because he has not achieved any of his stated goals (see: every single issue he advocates still being ignored by pretty much everybody running), and in the process managed to assist in instilling an administration that actually ran counter to everything that Nader stood for.

 

I can admire a guy for pushing the right issues, but once a strategy has failed, isn't it time to try a new strategy? Wouldn't Nader be a lot more effective helping grassroots movements to take off rather than trying to reform the system from the top down, since that's already shown itself not to work? If he really cares about these issues, rather than simply talking about the issues, shouldn't he be concerned about the actual result of his actions on those issues?

 

I don't like the two party system, and in general I'm supportive of third party candidates putting important issues into the political discussion. But Nader has not done this.

[cryptique]

Knock yourself out and have a good laugh - I

[Good Old Neon]

That's why I didn't level an outright accusation -- I wasn't 100% sure. I thought I remembered there being a comment along the lines of "why would anyone vote for one of the major party presidential candidates?" I guess I didn't, but this is a thread about Nader, and he's a presidential candidate, so that's the angle I took. Regardless, the differences between the parties are there and they're real, whether you're talking about individual candidates/legislators, whole congressional delegations, or the parties at large. To dismiss them so readily, with such sweeping generalizations, is clumsy rhetoric at best, hopelessly naive (or something far sadder) at worst.

 

You've used numerous examples of the Democrats knuckling under to the Bush agenda, and yes, that disgusts me too, but these things happen when you have a reckless administration abetted by majorities in Congress, or more recently, by a minority large enough to sustain presidential vetoes. Does that excuse the Dems from their votes? No. Is it an indicator of how they'd vote with a Democrat in the White House? Absolutely, positively not.

 

The playing field changes considerably with a Democratic executive branch, and you're left with apples/oranges comparisons to the current situation. That's a nuance you've refused to address here, probably because it unravels your whole argument.

 

As for the "facts" on that Green Party site, I hope you've got a salt shaker handy, because you need a few grains. Some of that info is probably "true" -- in a very general sense -- but are you seriously going to suggest that the Greens haven't spun the reality of the situation to better support their position? They tried to dispel the idea of real differences in the space of two small table cells for each issue. Do you really think that's a comprehensive view of the two parties' positions? No, it's the web equivalent of a sound bite, constructed to support a decidedly biased agenda. If you're going to link to something to try to support your points, try finding a source with at least some semblance of objectivity.

 

Fair enough

[EL the Famous]

From:

For all the vitriol directed at Nader from his run in 2000, people seem to forget that his main issue - that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats - has been proven to be true.

 

To:

Fair enough

[bobbob1313]

Are you serious? Al Gore was the single strongest environmental activist in our federal government.

 

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there has been a lot of revisionist history with regards to Gore's environmental record in 00. Sure, he was an advocate, but what I was referring to how it was a non-issue for the 2000 election, and ever since then, it has become one of the Democrats pet issues. This isn't accidental, and I think Nader's 2000 run had a lot to do with it.

[Good Old Neon]

From:

 

 

To:

 

 

 

Thanks for missing my point.

[JUDE]

Clinton/Nader 08'

[MrRain422]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there has been a lot of revisionist history with regards to Gore's environmental record in 00. Sure, he was an advocate, but what I was referring to how it was a non-issue for the 2000 election, and ever since then, it has become one of the Democrats pet issues. This isn't accidental, and I think Nader's 2000 run had a lot to do with it.

 

Gore did not make it an issue in 2000, and I wish he had. But he did a lot of great work for the environment during his time in the Senate and tried to as Vice-President. I'm not really sure what you mean by it being a pet issue for Dems though -- I can't think of any who have really tried to do much for the environment in the last 8 years. Certainly there is a much larger grassroots movement than there was 8 years ago, but I would credit Gore (mainly through his movie, but through other things as well) for this. I suppose it's possible that Gore was inspired by Nader to revive his environmentalism, but I don't see any evidence of that at all. It appears to me that what actually happened that the environment has always been Gore's pet issue, and that he chose not to make it a big issue in 2000 because he didn't think it had political traction (possibly a mistake on his part, but who knows), but then after leaving politics re-dedicated himself to a cause that he's always been very passionate about. I know a lot of people who become more aware of environmental issues because of An Inconvenient Truth. I don't think I know anyone that got to the issue through Nader, least of all anyone in elected office right now. What little the Dems have done about the environment in the last few years was because of political pressure from Democratic voters, and I think most of those voters got there through Gore, not Nader.

 

And that being said, Bush has been the worst environmental president in history. Gore's defeat in 2000 was devistating for those concerned with the environment. Now of course I don't know for sure that a President Gore would have been able to accomplish anything on the environment with the political climate on the issue being what it is/was, but I think in all likelihood he would have at least tried. And he certainly would not have implemented the same environmentally destructive policies that Bush has. So with that in mind, what did Nader accomplish on this issue with the 2000 run? The biggest environmentalist (by far) in the top levels of our government lost, and an environmental terrorist won in his place.

 

And no, I'm not "blaming" Nader for Gore's loss necessarilly -- certainly the main reason Gore lost was because he ran a terrible campaign. But if Nader is to be credited advancing certain issues, I think we should at least look to see if he did in fact advance those issues, and at least on the environmental issue he hurt the cause immensely by playing a role in Bush winning.

[Sir Stewart]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there has been a lot of revisionist history with regards to Gore's environmental record in 00. Sure, he was an advocate, but what I was referring to how it was a non-issue for the 2000 election, and ever since then, it has become one of the Democrats pet issues. This isn't accidental, and I think Nader's 2000 run had a lot to do with it.

It definitely wasn't a non-issue then. Even Bush ran on promises to curb CO2 emissions in 2000.

[EL the Famous]

Thanks for missing my point.

 

i don't think me missing your point has proven to be true.

[bobbob1313]

Ok, maybe Nader had nothing to do with the environment becoming a more important "political" issue for the democrats. I still don't have a problem with him running.

 

And a quick question for all of you Democrats who all pissed off about Nader, because he has no chance to win and is being an egomaniac and all of these things. Would you have even a small problem with Ron Paul running as a 3rd party candidate and "taking" votes from the republicans? Your opposition to Nader is nothing more than self serving. It really doesn't have anything to do with the way he goes about it, you just don't like that he might hurt your chances.

[Sir Stewart]

Anyone who has a real problem with Nader running should not vote for him.

[bjorn_skurj]

Let's face it - McCain is going to be president anyway, so you might as well let Ralph have his jollies.

[EL the Famous]

Ok, maybe Nader had nothing to do with the environment becoming a more important "political" issue for the democrats. I still don't have a problem with him running.

 

And a quick question for all of you Democrats who all pissed off about Nader, because he has no chance to win and is being an egomaniac and all of these things. Would you have even a small problem with Ron Paul running as a 3rd party candidate and "taking" votes from the republicans? Your opposition to Nader is nothing more than self serving. It really doesn't have anything to do with the way he goes about it, you just don't like that he might hurt your chances.

 

i think it's fine that he runs...i just wish he would do something other than show up every four years to actually put reform in place on these issues of difference. like pedro said, i won't vote for him as it accomplishes nothing.

[Good Old Neon]

i don't think me missing your point has proven to be true.

 

But, you overlooked this:

 

That

[MrRain422]

I don't have a problem with Nader running, per se. I just don't see what the point of it is. He hasn't accomplished anything by running before and I don't have any reason to think that he'll be any more successful this time. It's not that I don't think he should run because he can't win -- I understand full well that winning is not the point of a third-party candidacy. I just think that, due to his failure to make any impact on the issues he champions in the last 8 years, that his efforts may better be spent in other ways.

[Dreamin']

[Mr. Kinsley]

Here you go, Crypt - more examples of just how far apart the democrats and republicans are on the issues:

 

 

http://www.therealdifference.org/print.html

I found the one about the invasion of Afghanistan interesting. Of course, the Greens opposed it and Dems/GOP supported it. Here's the details on the Greens opposing it.

 

Oppose

Opposed the full-scale bombing and invasion of Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan has not done anything to reduce the threat of terrorism or shrink the size and support for terror groups. Afghanistan is a country in disarray. Warlords now dominate the country.

 

Yeah, you're right. It hasn't done anything to reduce the threat of terrorism because we wasted too much time farting around with Iraq. Send all the troops that went to Iraq to Afghanistan and we'd have had that shit cleaned up in about 2 years tops.

 

I do think there is some credence to the similarities between the 2 major parties, but they aren't exactly identical twins.

[Good Old Neon]

After reviewing your post I take issue with this:

 

As for the "facts" on that Green Party site, I hope you've got a salt shaker handy, because you need a few grains. Some of that info is probably "true" -- in a very general sense -- but are you seriously going to suggest that the Greens haven't spun the reality of the situation to better support their position? They tried to dispel the idea of real differences in the space of two small table cells for each issue. Do you really think that's a comprehensive view of the two parties' positions? No, it's the web equivalent of a sound bite, constructed to support a decidedly biased agenda. If you're going to link to something to try to support your points, try finding a source with at least some semblance of objectivity.

 

And, after doing some further research, everything on the provided list checks out. To suggest that

[John Smith]

Ok, maybe Nader had nothing to do with the environment becoming a more important "political" issue for the democrats. I still don't have a problem with him running.

 

And a quick question for all of you Democrats who all pissed off about Nader, because he has no chance to win and is being an egomaniac and all of these things. Would you have even a small problem with Ron Paul running as a 3rd party candidate and "taking" votes from the republicans? Your opposition to Nader is nothing more than self serving. It really doesn't have anything to do with the way he goes about it, you just don't like that he might hurt your chances.

 

I have no problem with him or anyone else running for office. The only probel I had with this thread is the utterly false assertion that democrats and republicans have little difference between them.