Why I hate Ralph Nader!

February 26, 2008 at 10:47 pm | Posted in politics | 11 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ralph Nader is running for President once again. He claims that he wants to give Americans a choice. He believes that both American political arties have become too corporate. He says both parties have let this country down when it comes to the Iraq war.

I agree with him on those issues but he has no business running for President. He is not running for President because he cares about his country. He is running for President because he is selfish and he enjoys playing the role of the spoiler.

I believe with all my heart that if it wasn’t for Ralph Nader we would be nearing the end of Al Gore’s second term as President instead of George W. Bush’s. In election that came down to 537 votes he had no business running for President in 2000 either. People say there is no evidence that everybody who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. Okay, if you say so. I can’t imagine the very liberal people who voted for Nader would have voted for Bush. We didn’t’ need all of the people who voted for Nader in Florida in 2000 to vote for Gore. We just needed 538 of them and the rest to vote for anybody but Bush.

I must point out that Nader didn’t just cost Gore the election in Florida. The Florida thing has been done to death. Ralph Nader also cost Al Gore the state of New Hampshire, which at that time would have been enough to have changed the outcome of the entire election. Gore last New Hampshire by 7,211 votes, Nader receive 22,000. You do the math.

In 2004 Nader ran for President again. As always he claimed America deserved a choice. Yet not even the Green Party wanted him. He was forced to run as a true independent. The man did some deplorable things to get on the ballot in some states. He accepted money from Anti-Gay organizations. With gay marriage such a hot button issue in 2004 the organizations knew Nader would siphon votes away from John Kerry. Yet Nader still accepted their money. This from a man people claim can not be bought. Then his supporters collected signatures to get him on the Iowa Ballot at a Republican rally. If that isn’t admitting that Nader benefits Republicans I don’t’ know what is.

Going back to 2000 again. Nader said there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush…Does anybody still believe that? If you do you are a man fool.

Of course I don’t just blame Ralph Nader for running I blame the people who voted for him.

As mentioned before Nader represented the Green Party in 2000. Did the people who voted for him really think George W. Bush would be better for the environment than Al Gore?

Another argument for voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 was for the Green party to get 15% of the national popular vote so that in future elections it could receive federal matching funds. Well guess what? They failed and we’ve wasted eight years with George W. Bush as President.

I am all in favor of establishing a legitimate third or fourth party in American. But the way to do it is on the local and state levels first. Get Greens or Libertarians elected to city council, school boards and state legislatures. Then work on getting some elected to the U.S. House of Representatives or senate. But third parties too often are only interested in making a splash every four years. That’s not how you change things.

So whether he ends up running with the Green Party or as an independent Ralph Nader has once again put his own ambition over what’s most important for this country.

A great deal of resources that should be devoted to defeating John McCain will now be spent fighting Nader.

With so many troops still in Iraq, the economy and education in the shitter and the balance of the Supreme Court hanging in the balance the stakes have never been higher. If Ralph Nader helps John McCain get elected there will be blood on his hands.

Shame on you Ralph Nader, SHAME ON YOU!!



RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for Ralph Nader. People need to quit presuming that the only two parties that are entitled for votes are the Democrats and the Republicans. Both parties are to blame for No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, and Iraq because both parties voted for it. Things wouldn’t be muchg different under Gore. 9/11 would have still happened, we still would have invaded Afghanistan, and we would have had the same “evidence” to invade Iraq.

  2. I appreciate all opinons but I have to disagree. While the Democrats did cave time and time again after 9/11 I know things would have been different under Gore.

    I don’t believe 9/11 would have still happened. Bush ignored all the warning signs. While I don’t believe it was an iside job I don’t think he tried hard enough to stop it. Let us not forget he received a report entitled “Bin Ladin determined to attack in the US” that he ignored while he was on vacation. No 9/11 then no Afghanistan. Even if there was I don’t think Gore would have let Bin Ladin escape from Tora Bora. And Gore would have never been determined to go to war against Iraq. Sure the same “evidence” would have been there but I don’t think Gore would have cherry picked it.

    That does include the fact that Bush cut back on evironmental rules. Gore would have made environmental protection a priorty.

    Kennedy is now the center of the Supreme court because Bush appointed Roberts and Allito. Gore would have surely appointed more liberal supreme court judges.

    The federal government would have responded much quicker to Katrina.

    Gore wouldn’t have supported a Federal Marriage Amendment twice.

    The hudge surplus we had at the end of Clinton wouldn’t have been turned into a recond defeceit. Gore would have never put forth such hudge tax cuts which did nothing in the end but put this country in debt to China.

    But yeah other than that things would have been the same.

  3. Just as in 2000… and we saw who we got then!!!

    A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.

    And now:
    A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain!


    If ya’ like going to war in the wrong country for no apparent reason vote McCain.

    Uhhh…lemme see… terrorists from Saudi Arabia flew planes into buildings on the direction of another Saudi in Afghanistan…. soooo….OBVIOUSLY… we should invade Iraq.

    Yep! Lemme have some more of that logic…. Maybe Bush can run as Vice-President…. Is that allowed? Because he and his staff are real geniuses.

    Remember folks, the ONLY reason Bush got the White House was because of Nader. Thus Nader can be blamed for: The Iraq War, The economy, The price of oil, and possibly even 9-11.(one can only guess on that last one) McCain is just as nutty as Bush but smarter which makes him more dangerous.

  4. Gore lost because he didn’t inspire anyone to vote for him! There were 250,000 registered democrats in Florida in 2000 that voted for Bush! Gore lost his home state of Tenessee! A vote for Nader is not a vote for McCain. A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.

    Nader runs against the corporatocracy and I agree with him that it doesn’t matter which party is in control of the whitehouse, it is the same powers that rule this country. That is what Nader wants to oust.

    Nader makes a great point in saying that if Obama loses to McCain this election then the Democratic party has some serious issues. Obama should be able to take it by a landslide over the warmongering McCain. It’s Obamas election to lose (assuming Hillary doesn’t have him assassinated).

  5. Regarding Nader 2000, 2004, and 2008, many liberals will recognize themselves in the Merriam-Webster definitions below:

    groupthink a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics

    scapegoat to assign someone to bear the blame for others; to make someone the object of irrational hostility

    bigot [from French, hypocrite] a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance

    denial a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality

    Think about it: the ACLU in lockstep with the corporate-statist (K Street) “wing” of the Democratic Party working with state party chairs and executives and Democratic Secretaries of State to deny ballot access to an independent party that is based on the platform of confronting the culture of cronyism, corruption, and crime.

    Remember, George H. Bush is a two-term president only because the New Democrats lacked (still lack and always will lack) vision, message, organizing ability, and spine. One need only follow the money to know who and what they are.

    And the 1996 Democratic congressional majority including most of the “populist” freshmen: same lack of character, same money trail.

    To whom do you think the current candidates are beholden? Check out their (Wall Street) economic advisors.

    Liberals’ vilification of Nader and their continuing simplistic anybody-but-Bush mindset has overshadowed the dark days of working people voting for George Bush.

  6. If Ralph Nader really cared that much he’d do more than show up every four years. The people who he claims he wants to help needed in in 2001, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Not just 2000, 2004 and 2008.

  7. My name is Jeff Kerr and I will be voting for Ralph Nader in the 2008 presidential election.


    Because we live in a republic, and are supposed to vote for who we feel best represents our views in government.

    I am a firm believer that Gore stole the election from Nader.


    Because if more people were able to get the message that Ralph was talking about, if the Democrats and Republicans didn’t have such a strong hold on the American politics, if Gore had not run, than Ralph Nader would have defiantly run the election.

    But if you have the mindset that Nader “spoiled” the election for Gore (though I will get back to that later), there are many variables that you are overlooking.

    1)Gore lost his home state.
    2)Gore ran a shit campaign.
    3)Gore wasn’t “liberal” by any means, in fact him and George Bush ran similar campaigns.
    4)250,000 registered democrats voted for Bush.
    5)Thousands of others sat at home (in FL), and MILLIONS across America.
    6)Gore actually WON FL, but the head of the election committee in FL had decided beforehand that Bush was winning.
    7)The Supreme court made a fucking stupid decision of making George Bush the president.
    8)Every one of the other 6 3rd parties in FL got more votes than the 537 needed to bridge the gap.

    Aside from that
    1)Ralph Nader ran a clean campaign.
    2)Ralph Nader had the legal right to run.
    3)Ralph Nader was excluded from the Presidential debates, a time in American politics where millions of people can actually hear about the issues.

    To go a step farther.
    Do you think that in 1860 that people should not have voted for Abraham Lincoln because he was on a 3rd party ticket and could potential “spoil” the election? No, because 3rd parties are ESSENTIAL to our government. We’ve gained so many things, woman’s suffrage, the minimum wage, national health care, and social security because of 3rd parties that not necessarily won elections, but exposed people to the issues of the day.

    There are many problems in Washington that neither Democrats nor Republicans are addressing. Its important to have third party candidates, and Ralph Nader has just as much right to run as John Mccain or Barack Obama.

    And to say that one of the most activists people in America (Ralph Nader) doesn’t show up more than every 4 years…..well he’s too busy running his MANY non for profit organizations to help out the people for America. He is too busy writing books, speaking for people, and trying to crack down on the curruption in government to be in the limelight (which he isn’t any ways , he is totally ignored by most big corporate news).

    Also, a quick lesson in math.

    If 20 people vote for Barack Obama, and 20 people vote for John Mccain, and I vote for Ralph Nader, does it make the final count be 19/20/1? No, a vote for Nader isn’t a -1 for Barack Obama, a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.

    Also, who cares if Nader gets signatures from a Republican convention, Republicans are people too. Not all Republian’s are Neo-Cons. But I will agree that I do have a moral objection from him taking money from an anti-gay group, but I also have a moral objection to both of the candidates getting money from huge corporations.

    So that’s why attacking Nader is silly :).

  8. your facts are your opinons off of facts so in the end you statments are true no false but have no point

  9. Yeah, keep dreaming about a Gore victory! What did you do to get Gore into office? Did you organize people and stand out in the cold streets demanding a reassessment of what happened in Florida in 2000? Did you organize your community? Not in 2000, and not in 2004!

    Democrats(=conservative liberals)have no spine and that is why they couldn’t stand up to the conservative fascists in this country. Maybe they could blame Nader and his supporters, so they could divert the blame. But I didn’t see as many Democrats protesting the Bush 2000 Inauguration, I saw mostly Greens, Libertarians, and Anarchists. Where were the Democrats then? Oh, right…. they don’t play like that.

    You get what you get. Let’s see if the Democrats have finally gotten their shit together this time.
    Money can buy you a lot.

  10. Ralph Nader has spent over 40 years studying and understanding the Constitution. Our Constitutional rights are being made extinct at an alarming rate, and no one in Washington, including the Republican and Democratic candidates for President are addressing this issue, possibly because they support the erosion of the individual’s Constitutional rights (they both, for example, support the fact that the President is now no longer responsible for possible war crimes – how can we ever be safe from a dictator in this case?). Every vote for Nader is a vote for the continuation of the core of the Constitution, which really was framed by some very smart people. The beauty of the Constitution is that the laws that are framed based upon it have a “suicide gene” built into them. If they are intelligently written, with good intent, they will be generally interpreted in the same manner by a large number of people, and will be enforced. Poorly written, poorly intentioned laws will lack ease of interpretation and become indefensible in court, and will largely be ignored. The structure of the Constitution is therefore sound and will withstand the effects of changes in our social structure, the evolution of commerce and religion, and a host of many other factors that its detractors are decrying. In the face of the loss of our Constitution (looming), we have no other structure in place. This is the basis for a dictatorship (eventually). A vote for Nader is a vote for the Constitution. The percentage of voters who vote for Nader is a clear message to ANYONE in public office that this is the percentage of citizens who will go to great lengths to assure that NO ONE’S basic rights are ignored. This is critical. A vote for Nader is a vote for this assurance, and is certainly not a waste. He won’t be around forever. If we refuse to allow him to lead us, at the very least, we must allow him to keep us free, and safe from autocracy. This man has, literally, spent his entire life defending the Constitution, and it would be extreme ignorance on our part to waste those vast efforts at a time when our Constitution is on the verge of being eradicated, regardless of which major party sits in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches. The Constitution truly is us – it is you; it is me; and in the event of any one or more branches of the Government assuming too much power, it is your and my ONLY voice. Don’t lose your voice, and the voice of generations to come. The battle for the creation of this structure could not occur again in our lifetimes; we simply do not have the education or energy for it. If we lose it, we will lose it for a long time; possibly forever.

  11. I’m a Canadian, and have been following many American elections from across the border.

    The sense of electoral entitlement among some Democrats (and their more rabid supporters) is almost astonishing.

    Look at the “feedback” section for any article that mentions Nader, and over and over you’ll see the same garbage about “2000 election spoiler,” etc. It’s like reading stuff from a pack of robots.

    I’ll stop at that, as other contributors to this discussion have already covered most of the main points…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: