[MacManMikeOSX]

love the man wants top leaglize pot, outlaw logging in alaska/oregon/california and thoose other places anti. meat. how much better can you get.
flame away!

[rampant]

Nader, not Nadder. :o

[Montanan]

Yeah, Ralph would have been a very interesting president -- he would actually have made politics interesting and fun again.

Still, I'm one of those people who hasn't yet forgiven him for undertaking a candidacy that siphoned off just enough Democratic votes to saddle us with Dubya for four years.

Flame away on that!

[rampant]

It's been investigated, and it was found that Nader didn't take enough votes from Gore in Florida for it to matter.

[Bushleaguer]

You cannot blame Nader for electing Bush. The votes in Florida were not counted properly and the democratic process failed.

[Phanguye]

just like you cant blame perot for getting clinton elected...errrr.... i mean....

yea it is interesting that nader became famous because of his work making some 70s US car roll at like 15 mph.... yea "unsafe at any speed"

[ringo]

Could we get a look at Congressman Nader or Senator Nader or even Governor Nader first? Why does it have to be all or nothing?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Bushleaguer:
You cannot blame Nader for electing Bush. The votes in Florida were not counted properly and the democratic process failed.

The votes were countes properly multiple times. it was Gore who wanted to introduce more error into the process, hoping to turn things in his favor. Every study done since then shows the same damn thing: Bush won. Fair and square. Sorry, but elections are not Calvinball; you can't change the rules in the middle of the game, even if that means your favorite candidate won't win.

Ahem. As for Nader, he's a very good consumer advocate, but he's not a very good politician. Which is probably just as well; power would only corrupt him, just as it does basically everyone else. We need him far more at the consumer-advocacy level, where he can still do a great deal of good.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The votes were countes properly multiple times. it was Gore who wanted to introduce more error into the process, hoping to turn things in his favor. Every study done since then shows the same damn thing: Bush won. Fair and square. Sorry, but elections are not Calvinball; you can't change the rules in the middle of the game, even if that means your favorite candidate won't win.

Ahem. As for Nader, he's a very good consumer advocate, but he's not a very good politician. Which is probably just as well; power would only corrupt him, just as it does basically everyone else. We need him far more at the consumer-advocacy level, where he can still do a great deal of good.

There is no question that Nader is a good consumer advocate. There is also probably no question that he wouldn't make a good politician, because he stands firmly for what he believes in, and would likely not be amenable to lots of the dirty back room deals that are done in Washington. Your statement that he would corrupted by power, however, I will debate! Not everyone is able to be bought and sold, and Nader, of all people has certainly had his chances to be purchased, by some of the firms he's rallied against, and he has not buckled in to any of them! He lives a very spartan life, because those are his principles, just as his principles drive him to fight for what he believes in. Most career politiciansare willing to sell their principles to the highest bidder.

[daimoni]

.

[ink]

Originally posted by Montanan:
Still, I'm one of those people who hasn't yet forgiven him for undertaking a candidacy that siphoned off just enough Democratic votes to saddle us with Dubya for four years.

Flame away on that!

I voted for Nader, but I would have voted for Bush over Gore, had I been forced to choose between the two.

Nader may be for a lot of the Green agenda, but he made his claim to fame with Consumer Reports and honesty in advertising (imagine that!). I have a great respect for the man, and even though I don't agree with all of his planks. He's a real consumer advocate (before the word "consumer" was made into a vulgarity by the far-left). I definately wouldn't have voted for Biafra as president.

[cpt kangarooski]

Mm, I liked Nader enough to vote for him, but I agree -- he's not really ideal, and I don't like some of his positions. (e.g. campaign finance reform, gun control) 2000 was just a shitty year. Hopefully we'll have some better options the next time around.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Bushleaguer:
You cannot blame Nader for electing Bush. The votes in Florida were not counted properly and the democratic process failed.

Yeah it wasn't counted properly all the what, 5 times it was done?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The votes were countes properly multiple times. it was Gore who wanted to introduce more error into the process, hoping to turn things in his favor. Every study done since then shows the same damn thing: Bush won. Fair and square. Sorry, but elections are not Calvinball; you can't change the rules in the middle of the game, even if that means your favorite candidate won't win.

Ahem. As for Nader, he's a very good consumer advocate, but he's not a very good politician. Which is probably just as well; power would only corrupt him, just as it does basically everyone else. We need him far more at the consumer-advocacy level, where he can still do a great deal of good.

Shhh! you are messing with some people's tin foil hat!

[L'enfanTerrible]

Zimphire, your sig is hilarious. Do you have something against M$? Good show!

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Zimphire, your sig is hilarious. Do you have something against M$? Good show!

mwahahaha

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
just like you cant blame perot for getting clinton elected...errrr.... i mean....

yea it is interesting that nader became famous because of his work making some 70s US car roll at like 15 mph.... yea "unsafe at any speed"

try the corvair and the fact that the non collapsing steering colum would enpale drivers in a strong front impact

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Zimphire, your sig is hilarious. Do you have something against M$? Good show!

Not really. I just posted it for the Windriods on the forum that troll.

:-)

[Miniryu]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Bush won. Fair and square.

HA HAHAAAAHAHH AHHAAAHH AHA HAHAAAHHAA !!!!!


(OMFG, I can't believe you dolts have resurrected this discussion again. I am so sick of going over all of this to deaf ears. There was nothing fair about Bush's victory.)



(I voted for Nader, btw.)

[Face Ache]

Go Nad!

(Has this joke been done already?)

[The Jackalope]

Why would anyone want a communist lawyer for president? And why do so many people put their faith in democracy when it ****s over so many people constantly anyway? Do 3 idiots have more brains than one Einstienian genius? No...just more brawn.


Oh, and the socialists of the republican party and the fascists of the dems are no real alternative either. What gets me is that after the unbridled crapping on the BoR by the current administration, the "country" will probably put another dem in office. Fight collectivism with collectivism? Give me a goddamn break.

[maxelson]

"I'm Nadder than hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

[daimoni]

.

[Lerkfish]

Put me down in the column that say Nader was/would be a lousy politician. Why? because once he knew he was only going to be a spoiler in a very close election, he should have offered his voter block to either candidate who agreed to adopt the largest percentage of his platform. THAT would have been a good political move, that would have benefitted the country, as well as himself politically. But NO, he had to stonewall to the bitter end in a doomed narcissistic move that hurt all involved parties, including himself.
THAT is why I lost all respect for the man, because instead of using the pivotal power he held to actually promote what he was campaigning for, he instead p!ssed it away because he was too obstinate to realize that realistically politics is a game of percentages.

[calamar1]

Originally posted by KarlG:


There is no question that Nader is a good consumer advocate. There is also probably no question that he wouldn't make a good politician, because he stands firmly for what he believes in, and would likely not be amenable to lots of the dirty back room deals that are done in Washington.

You're definitely right about the latter... Indeed, given the return of a need to have a President that is well-versed in foreign policy (which is not to say that we have one now, by any means), i don't think Nader would be the man for that job. i voted for him nevertheless. that said, i'd tend to look at his 2000 campaign as him still being a consumer advocate, just in a different way. Just as when he fought the automakers, and railed against Microsoft, with the elections there wasn't really much of a choice, and the entrenched powers were working to keep it that way (look at how they criminally kept him out of the debates). His candidacy wasn't so much about getting him elected, but more to establish the legitimacy of the concept of electing someone that isn't Republican or Democrat, and that's definitely worth fighting for. So he was still fighting for the consumers, just in this case, the product was politics.

[The Jackalope]

Originally posted by daimoni:


Communist? Socialist? Fascists? Collectivism?

I think you need to look up those words in a dictionary, son.

Because it's obvious you have no clue what the **** you're talking about.

I state again...just calling a spade a spade. Wanting to put corporations under state rule is what now? Your anthhill rantings have never given you an ounce of credibilty. Prove to me otherwise what I called each group, shmucko.

[daimoni]

.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by daimoni:


If you don't believe in anything except for percentages... then yeah, the Greens are a bunch of doomed narcissists, and Nader is the worst one (next to me).

But the whole Nader platform was based upon not settling for business as usual. The only people who benefit from cowering in the face of the Game are those who want things to remain exactly as they are. The Greens weren't spoilers... if anything they did quite well getting their own candidates elected (on the local level).

Regarding obstinance... did we have the Democrats or the Republicans trying to make overtures or concessions to the Greens? No. They ignored Nader and more importantly, the people who may have voted for them (like me)... by doing all they could to make sure he couldn't participate in debates.

jeez, lower your guns, I'm talking about political saavy and you're talking about philosophical integrity. The two don't mix, and I'm not saying political saavy is morally better, obviously its not. All I'm saying is ONCE it became clear that he was not going to win, but had garnered a large wedge of support, he should have realized that used whatever he could to get his issues addressed.
Philosophical integrity got the greens absolutely squat, in fact the Bush administration has rolled green issues back at least a decade.

And please, do NOT put words in my mouth like "If you don't believe in anything except for percentages" If you think about it, you would know that an ad hominem attack on me for just stating the pragmatic reality of the american political game. I did not create the american political game, but I guess I can read the rulebook better than Nader. go figure.

[Montanan]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Put me down in the column that say Nader was/would be a lousy politician. Why? because once he knew he was only going to be a spoiler in a very close election, he should have offered his voter block to either candidate who agreed to adopt the largest percentage of his platform. THAT would have been a good political move, that would have benefitted the country, as well as himself politically. But NO, he had to stonewall to the bitter end in a doomed narcissistic move that hurt all involved parties, including himself.
THAT is why I lost all respect for the man, because instead of using the pivotal power he held to actually promote what he was campaigning for, he instead p!ssed it away because he was too obstinate to realize that realistically politics is a game of percentages.

Very well stated, Lerk.

Still, no matter how completely improbable, it's fun to daydream about what an honest-to-gosh Nader presidency might have been like. I suspect that it would have been an unmitigated disaster, as the Washington political infrastructure chewed poor Ralph up and spit him out. If he ever could have gotten has act together, though (an even more unlikely prospect than his actually getting elected, IMHO), it's just possible that those four years could have been utterly glorious.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Put me down in the column that say Nader was/would be a lousy politician. Why? because once he knew he was only going to be a spoiler in a very close election, he should have offered his voter block to either candidate who agreed to adopt the largest percentage of his platform. THAT would have been a good political move, that would have benefitted the country, as well as himself politically. But NO, he had to stonewall to the bitter end in a doomed narcissistic move that hurt all involved parties, including himself.
THAT is why I lost all respect for the man, because instead of using the pivotal power he held to actually promote what he was campaigning for, he instead p!ssed it away because he was too obstinate to realize that realistically politics is a game of percentages.

Fortunately, he cannot just give his votes to someone else. They're not his votes -- they belong to the voters, and no one can come along and arbitrarily override their judgment. To do so would in a very meaningful sense be to harm democracy. I was voting for Nader largely because I viewed Bush and Gore as interchangable worse candidates. Frankly I still believe that -- had the election come out the other way, I suspect that things would be about as they are now. I certainly wouldn't've cared who endorsed either one.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Montanan:


Very well stated, Lerk.

Still, no matter how completely improbable, it's fun to daydream about what an honest-to-gosh Nader presidency might have been like. I suspect that it would have been an unmitigated disaster, as the Washington political infrastructure chewed poor Ralph up and spit him out. If he ever could have gotten has act together, though (an even more unlikely prospect than his actually getting elected, IMHO), it's just possible that those four years could have been utterly glorious.

Well, I think an iconoclast is necessary, to shake up the existing powers, but if no real advantage is gained, its an impotent move.
I"m not defending the status quo, by any stretch of the imagination, in fact, I'd like campaign reform to be applied in a very draconian way. I think the present defacto bifurcated political morass is the worst thing that ever happened to this country, I applaud and support additional and third, fourth parties. BUT and HOWEVER, like I said, late in the election, when it was clear to everyone that Nader was not going to be anything but a spoiler, that's when the pragmatist should have overtaken the idealist and some attempt at achieving some worthwhile goals attempted.

The problem with american politics is, if you get there by being an iconoclast you immediately discover that you cannot accomplish anything at all without some level of cooperation or collusion. You will be insulates out as an irritant, like a grain of sand, you'll be coated in layers of ineffectivity like a pearl until you no longer irritate or accomplish anything. This is the political reality that you cannot use a system to overthrow itself without its permission, and you cannot garner its permission if you're constantly trying to overthrow it. Its a catch 22.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:


Fortunately, he cannot just give his votes to someone else. They're not his votes -- they belong to the voters, and no one can come along and arbitrarily override their judgment. To do so would in a very meaningful sense be to harm democracy. I was voting for Nader largely because I viewed Bush and Gore as interchangable worse candidates. Frankly I still believe that -- had the election come out the other way, I suspect that things would be about as they are now. I certainly wouldn't've cared who endorsed either one.

oh, right, agreed. I meant he could have come out endorsing either candidate after securing guarantees from them concerning green issues. I didn't mean he could deliver votes directly. Sorry if I was confusing.

Again, though, My ONLY point was that Nader was not a savvy politician. That is not meant as a moral judgement, in fact, its a complimentary moral judgement if anything. He could still be a good leader, if this were a monarchy or a dictactorship, where Aristotle's "benign dictator" scenario could come into play. But that isn't the case in american politics, it is very much cooperation and compromise or its dead in the water. I"m saying since he didn't understand or practice either cooperation or compromise, he would be ineffectual in the present political reality, therefore rendered worthless by a guantlet of resistance from the other politicians.

I hope that someone can finally understand my point. I"m not saying I like or fashioned this political reality, but I'm saying its a political reality.

[Montanan]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The problem with american politics is, if you get there by being an iconoclast you immediately discover that you cannot accomplish anything at all without some level of cooperation or collusion. You will be insulates out as an irritant, like a grain of sand, you'll be coated in layers of ineffectivity like a pearl until you no longer irritate or accomplish anything. This is the political reality that you cannot use a system to overthrow itself without its permission, and you cannot garner its permission if you're constantly trying to overthrow it. Its a catch 22.

Exactly. Contemporary American politics is clearly in need of tremendous, tremendous reform ... but if that's ever going to happen, it's going to have to be instigated by someone inside the current halls of power --much in the same way Gorbachov pushed the teetering Soviet system towards the beginnings of reform.

(And no, before anyone starts flaming, I am not suggesting any direct compaisons here between the American and Soviet political systems, nor am I implying that the same level of upheaval is needed over here.)

[daimoni]

.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by daimoni:


Wait a sec. Who is attacking whom here? I'll just hold still while you take aim.

Lerkfish, I don't think I put words in your mouth. At least, that wasn't my intention. Nor do I believe I stand on higher ground (morally, politically, or otherwise)... especially with you.

:: shoots a flower from my pistole ::

My misunderstanding, then....no harm, no foul *loads up a cannon with nice spring bouquet* right back at ya!

[ink]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
he should have offered his voter block to either candidate who agreed to adopt the largest percentage of his platform. THAT would have been a good political move, that would have benefitted the country, as well as himself politically. But NO, he had to stonewall to the bitter end in a doomed narcissistic move that hurt all involved parties, including himself.

Strange, what you call narcissistic, I call principle. I'm sick of having to chose between 2 puppets who are irrationally, mutually opposed on every point of pretty much every argument on a philosophical level -- but all too similar in the executive level.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ink:


Strange, what you call narcissistic, I call principle. I'm sick of having to chose between 2 puppets who are irrationally, mutually opposed on every point of pretty much every argument on a philosophical level -- but all too similar in the executive level.

agreed, the term "narcissistic" was misused here by me, but, again, I"m not the one who warped american politics this way, but the reality is there is no room for principle alone in current american politics. There must also be cooperation or collusion or nothing gets accomplished. Its a system the runs almost exclusively by the philosophy of "I'll scratch your back if your scratch mine". I'm sick of it too, and I'm further sick that everyone seems to think that just because I'm calling a spade a spade I like spades.

I'm just saying Nader had an opportunity to at least get some of his issues adopted by either party, but because he was too obstinate (is that a better term than narcisstic?), or as you prefer, too principled, he ended up with nothing not only for him, but for all those who supported him, and in fact, what ground they had garnered through decades of hard work is now either evaporated or on shaky ground when it could have been at least protected as status quo if not for the obstinate refusal to play politics.

Principles are fine, as long as they accomplish something, but if they mean turning around and kicking the soccer ball into your own goal to win the game for the other team, give me instead an unprincipled jerk who at least knows the rules of the game and can play it well enough for my side to win or at least not suffer a humiliating defeat.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


agreed, the term "narcissistic" was misused here by me, but, again, I"m not the one who warped american politics this way, but the reality is there is no room for principle alone in current american politics. There must also be cooperation or collusion or nothing gets accomplished. Its a system the runs almost exclusively by the philosophy of "I'll scratch your back if your scratch mine". I'm sick of it too, and I'm further sick that everyone seems to think that just because I'm calling a spade a spade I like spades.

I'm just saying Nader had an opportunity to at least get some of his issues adopted by either party, but because he was too obstinate (is that a better term than narcisstic?), or as you prefer, too principled, he ended up with nothing not only for him, but for all those who supported him, and in fact, what ground they had garnered through decades of hard work is now either evaporated or on shaky ground when it could have been at least protected as status quo if not for the obstinate refusal to play politics.

Principles are fine, as long as they accomplish something, but if they mean turning around and kicking the soccer ball into your own goal to win the game for the other team, give me instead an unprincipled jerk who at least knows the rules of the game and can play it well enough for my side to win or at least not suffer a humiliating defeat.

Your argument, Lerk, while articulate (as usual) seems predicated on the idea that there is much of anything common in the platform of Nader and Gore.

From Nader's POV, and many of us who support him, Gore was just as odious a choice for pres. as Bush, albeit for different reasons. For many Greens, Gore would even be a worse president because he would undermine the principles we value ALL THE WHILE hiding behind a veneer of so-called Liberalism.

Now with 20/20 hindsight we can see that Bush winning might do more to solidify the REAL left in this country than anything we could have imagined. I mean, did anyone think Bush could do so much damange in so little time? It's staggering!

And I won't mention the obvious argument of the importance of building the party. Nader has always been dedicated to planting shade trees under which he'll never sit. I sometimes wonder if the great things he's done for this country will ever even be acknowledged.

[ink]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm just saying Nader had an opportunity to at least get some of his issues adopted by either party

There is no legal, binding way to do this in American politics short of a contract (and the penalties for failure to execute would be.... what, exactly?). There is no parlimentary coalition, unfortunately, which is part of what Nader was on about.

but because he was too obstinate (is that a better term than narcisstic?), or as you prefer, too principled, he ended up with nothing not only for him, but for all those who supported him, and in fact, what ground they had garnered through decades of hard work is now either evaporated or on shaky ground when it could have been at least protected as status quo if not for the obstinate refusal to play politics.

Not nothing. Perhaps next time we'll get 8% of the vote. Perot got 19% of the vote in '92...

Principles are fine, as long as they accomplish something, but if they mean turning around and kicking the soccer ball into your own goal to win the game for the other team, give me instead an unprincipled jerk who at least knows the rules of the game and can play it well enough for my side to win or at least not suffer a humiliating defeat.

You're assuming that there is a lot of overlap between Nader and Gore. The entire democratic party is a tenuous coalition of special interests as it is (the same is true of the republicans, although to a lesser extent). Both major parties are slaves to corporate money (the democrats more so, because they get larger donations in smaller quantities), which is pretty much pillar #1 on Nader's no-no list. How could he bow to become some meaningless "me too" writ in the DNR platform, when doing so goes agains his principle argument: "people are more important than money". My mom watches her NEA money get funneled into the DNR, while I labored under Lockheed Martin and my sweat went into GOP donations. It's not representation, which is why Nader couldn't "give his voters" over to a machine that wouldn't look back.

Say no to the two-party system. It engenders mediocrity.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Go Nad!

(Has this joke been done already?)

ROFL!

I hadn't heard it! <gasping with bursts of laughter>

Ho ho ho!

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by ringo:
Could we get a look at Congressman Nader or Senator Nader or even Governor Nader first? Why does it have to be all or nothing?

Amen to that.

This is a system of checks and balances. No matter which postion he is elected to he would need to be effective within the system. The fact that he's unwilling to climb the ladder is a a warning to me, even though I support many of his positions. We don't want dictator's (even benevolent ones).

I wonder if he's ever been pressed on his unwillingness to run for a lower office? Or maybe he really doesn't believe he can win and is just playing the spoiler?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by rampant:
It's been investigated, and it was found that Nader didn't take enough votes from Gore in Florida for it to matter.

Can you provide a link to that? I find that hard to believe, given that Bush ended up technically winning by a couple hundred votes. I'm sure Nader got more votes than that. Or is it that he took just as many from Bush as Gore? I'd find that hard to believe too.

Originally posted by Millennium:
The votes were countes properly multiple times. it was Gore who wanted to introduce more error into the process, hoping to turn things in his favor. Every study done since then shows the same damn thing: Bush won. Fair and square. Sorry, but elections are not Calvinball; you can't change the rules in the middle of the game, even if that means your favorite candidate won't win.

Most (yeah, most) Republicans understand that there was too much error in the process to know who really got the most legal votes.

But what the studies you mentioned do show was that there were more Gore voters in Florida, and enough of their votes could be thrown out on legal technicalities like hanging chads and dimples to give Bush the victory. Fine, but you're acting like that's some kind of successful exercise in democracy. Clearly, it was a failure, because the guy who more people wanted lost.

With respect to changing the rules, the rules were that a) the intent of the voter was the ultimate standard for vote counting and b) if there was a dispute it would go to court, and judges would decide how to proceed. There was no rule that said "you can't count votes after Nov. 10" or "local election boards can't try to discern the intent of the voter." Quite the opposite.

(Sorry people, I didn't want to start on this, but I somehow can't let alone that kind of revisionist "it's the way it is because that's the way it should be" nonsense.)

[voodoo]

Dammit! Sometimes you make so much sense BRussell!

... like now.

...

I'll leave it at that for now.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Dammit! Sometimes you make so much sense BRussell!

... like now.

heh, it's kinda like if you put a million monkeys on MacNN for three years, one of them is bound to make some sense one of these days.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


Your argument, Lerk, while articulate (as usual) seems predicated on the idea that there is much of anything common in the platform of Nader and Gore.

From Nader's POV, and many of us who support him, Gore was just as odious a choice for pres. as Bush, albeit for different reasons.

sorry, but I'm saying nothing of the kind. I've made no statements that say Nader's positions mirror or even parallel either of the other two candidates. That's not my point. My point was the political reality of how to garner influence or achieve goals in the american political system.
In fact, I'm recognizing that very little of what Nader and the greens wanted was inherently contained in the platform of either major party. ALL THE MORE REASON to push whatever advantage he had to get them to adopt some of them. It didn't matter if all the greens abstained from voting after Nader endorsed either candidate, all that would matter is that the chosen candidate believed they might increase the slim lead in a very tightly contested election.
Now, whether politicians have fidelity to pre-election promises is another issue, which would be problematic even if Nader were elected, once the candidate had to deal with the rest of congress, and cooperation or compromises ensued.

The fact that greens didn't like either of the major candidates is irrelevant to the perceived advantage a major candidate would derive from an eleventh hour endorsement. I'm not discussing platform, merely the mechanics of what a third party candidate can or cannot achieve.