Nader Enters and Rationalizes Error

Yes, the man whose ego may be the largest in the nation, Ralph Nader, has entered the Presidential race as an independent. Although I did not watch his appearance on Meet the Press I have posted a clip of Ralph rationalizing his impact on the 2000 Presidential election. First Ralph told us repeatedly that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Now he tells us that Gore should have won but lost for multiple reasons. Lets see what they are: 1) lost his home state of Tennessee 2) Lost Bill Clinton’s home state 3) it was the Mayor of Miami’s fault 4)it was the Supreme Court’s fault. Saint Ralph had nothing to do with the loss, according to Ralph. Ralph does think very highly of himself, and has managed to rationalize the disaster that he is at least partly at fault for. Yes Ralph, we know Gore made mistakes, and yes Ralph we know he should have won Tennessee, but had you done the right thing despite Gore’s mistakes we would not be in Iraq today. Thanks, Ralph, for eight great years!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23320410#23320410

This entry was posted in National News. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Nader Enters and Rationalizes Error

  1. Jules Gordon says:

    Your Honor,

    I thought the fly in the ointment was going to be Mayor Bloomberg.

    It is nice to know that the Iraq war was the fault of Nader. I was under the impression that it was because we were attacked by a Jehadist Terror organization.

    Of course if Al Gore had won the election we would now be the tool of the UN, you know, the people who are saving tens of thousands of people in Africa…..NOT.

    Or maybe we would be worshiping at the feet of France as the corrupt leaders steal needed food and medicine from those Iraqis who were not massacred by our pal Hussein.

    Another benefit; Asama ben Laden would never have to hide.

    Well he’s back. What happens to the odds now?

    Jules

    Like

  2. D.J. says:

    If Nader didn’t run in 2000, Gore would’ve won two states that he didn’t: Florida and New Hampshire.

    FLORIDA
    Bush — 2,912,790 — 48.85%
    Gore — 2,912,253 — 48.84%
    Nader — 97,488 — 1.63%
    Others — 40,579 — 0.68%

    (Gore would’ve won Florida 51-49% without Nader in the race)

    NEW HAMPSHIRE
    Bush — 273,559 — 48.07%
    Gore — 266,348 — 46.80%
    Nader — 22,198 — 3.90%
    Others — 6,976 — 1.23%

    (Gore 51-48%)

    In the end, Gore would’ve received 296 electoral votes (along with his 543,816 popular vote victory).

    Any “Democrat” who votes for Ralph Nader this November is not a real Democrat.

    RALPH…PLEASE STAY HOME!

    Like

  3. Bill Manzi says:

    Not to rehash old ground but we are in Afghanistan because we were attacked on September 11. If Gore were President maybe we would have caught and executed Osama Bin Laden. (Remember him, wanted dead or alive) I guess by some rationale we could have attacked 1) Saudia Arabia 2) Syria 3) Libya 4) The Palestinian Authority (remember there were Palestinian celebrations on Sept 11 5) Jordan 6)Maybe Egypt
    My recollection of history is that after Pearl Harbor we attacked the Japanese. If Bush were in office maybe we would have bombed Australia.

    Like

  4. Derek Jackson says:

    I’m with his Honor here… I have yet to see any evidence the jihadists were in Iraq plotting with the Batha party who knew any alliance with them would result in just another reason to attack. Hussein knew if they were we could come running, and Bin Laden had put a call for his death as well.

    Bill, you forgot the Sudan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Kenya, and Malaysia. Also, I believe the Millennium bomber came from Canada, as well as some of the 9/11 terrorists, maybe we should attack them as well.

    If we attacked Iraq because Hussein needed to go or we didn’t want WMD proliferation, that is another debate that might have concrete arguments. But Bush and pub supporters need to drop this whole “the terrorists were in Iraq” crap unless they can come up with more then just:
    1) It’s a Muslim country,
    2) The terrorists were Muslim,
    3) Hussein is a bad guy

    Like

  5. Jules Gordon says:

    yOU hONOR,

    I do not think Gore has the courage to attack anyone. He would have done the same thing as “swift boat” Kerry and followed the lead of our allies and the UN…..nothing.

    Many of those countries you mentioned, except Australia, deserve to be bombed, but President Bush put our soldiers where the enemy is located. That is strategy.

    Don’t have to bomb Lybia, Regan and Bush scared the hell out of them.

    That is how I see it.

    Jules

    Like

  6. Jules Gordon says:

    Your Honor,

    What is your assesment of Nader’s run this year?

    Jules

    Like

  7. Bill Manzi says:

    Jules,
    I think he will be a continuing non-factor as he will have a problem with ballot access (as he did in 2004). I agree with you that the real third party threat comes from Bloomberg, who can finance an entire race on his own. Nader is hated amongst the folks that he should do well with, and he returns fire by declaring rhetorical war on the “liberal intellectuals” who continue to torment him over the 2000 election. Saint Ralph is spent as a political force.

    Like

  8. Jules Gordon says:

    Your Honor,

    I agree. I wonder why he thought he could be effective, never mind win.

    He could have an effect in states with close elections.

    There is enough mystery to make things interesting.

    Jules

    Like

  9. ohplease says:

    Instead of blaming Nader, if Democrats had any intellectual honesty, they would blame the mediocre Gore campaign (any semi-competent campaign would have had the ignoramus Bush snivelling in a corner), Gore not carrying his home state or Bill Clinton’s home state, the Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court for subverting the will of the electorate, etc. etc. etc. But instead they attack Nader and alienate many progressives with their whining and sense of entitlement.

    And regarding Iraq, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act), perpetuated the sanctions on Iraq that killed 1/2 a million Iraqi children, and imposed the longest bombing campaign on Iraq that any country has endured since the Vietnam War. Did Gore repudiate Clinton on this score? No. Who was Gore’s running mate? Joseph Lieberman.

    And the Democratic Party sure proved Nader wrong after the 2006 election when they caved to Bush and the Republicans time and again, didn’t they…

    The Democratic party is a corrupt band of thugs, and its apologists are snivelling whiners.

    Like

  10. Bill Manzi says:

    Well the writer is correct in that Gore did not carry his home state of Tennessee. Now lets evaluate that state for a moment. Isn’t it true that the likely cause of Gore’s defeat in Tennessee was the gun issue? What is Saint Ralph’s position on gun control? Maybe the Naderite band of holier than thou saints think they can sell their brand in states like Tennessee and Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia. (Not likely) Gore had an uphill fight in Tennessee because that state has rejected Democratic Party principles, plain and simple. They certainly reject Naderism. But the core issue for me is Nader’s ridiculous assertion that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. The Democratic Party may have its faults, but Nader resorting to that “big lie” to promote himself had the effect described. In Florida (and N.H.) Nader’s presence on the ballot cost Gore the election. The other factors cited were all part of the problem, but if it wasn’t for Nader we would have never known who Katherine Harris was. Nader deserves condemnation on that basis alone. When the simpeltons who continue to be apologists for this egomaniac can explain the differences between Gore and Bush on climate, on the federal budget, on Iraq, then maybe they can criticize the Democratic Party for some of its obvious failings, especially on supporting the Iraq resolution. Until then they should hang their heads in shame for the damage they have helped to bring for the last eight years.

    Like

  11. ohplease says:

    “Gore had an uphill fight in Tennessee because that state has rejected Democratic Party principles, plain and simple.”

    Um… it was his home state. Al Gore. A Democrat. That’s some good thinking there, Dems.

    “Maybe the Naderite band of holier than thou saints think they can sell their brand in states like Tennessee and Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.”

    How many people in those states didn’t vote at all? Neither of the two notorious, corrupt, corporate-stooge major parties had a chance of inspiring and mobilizing them. Nader (and other third parties) did.

    “The other factors cited were all part of the problem, but if it wasn’t for Nader we would have never known who Katherine Harris was.”

    If it weren’t for corrupt, corporate Democrats, you wouldn’t have had to know who Nader was. But if we deal in facts, instead of biased suppositions, investigations like the Solon Simmons / George Mason University study show that Nader actually gave Gore more votes by prodding him to the left and energizing his base (not to his positive effect on downstream progressive Democrats). At the end of the day, if the Democrats can’t beat the ignoramus George Bush, no matter how many third parties are in the race, they should admit that they are incompetent buffoons, fold up, and give a real progressive party a chance.

    “the differences between Gore and Bush on climate, on the federal budget, on Iraq”

    Both paid lip service to the environment (yes, even Bush). Both would have continued to treat the environment as a hostage to trade agreements and their corporate constituents. Al Gore would not have been nearly as accepted on his anti-global-warming message if he had been president at the time. As it stands, even Bush and other conservatives around the world are paying lip service to global climate change now, thanks to the efforts of the IPCC, and despite Gore’s factually challenged video and his hypocritical mega-carbon lifestyle.

    On Iraq? Hello, another Democrat who can’t read (or think?). I repost: And regarding Iraq, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act), perpetuated the sanctions on Iraq that killed 1/2 a million Iraqi children, and imposed the longest bombing campaign on Iraq that any country has endured since the Vietnam War. Did Gore repudiate Clinton on this score? No. Who was Gore’s running mate? Joseph Lieberman.

    Like

  12. Bill Manzi says:

    “Um… it was his home state. Al Gore. A Democrat. That’s some good thinking there, Dems.”

    But I noticed that you didn’t talk about guns. I guess Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi are states where “Nader actually gave Gore more votes by prodding him to the left and energizing his base”. If you really believe that in those states Gore was helped by a leftward turn I guess Naderite simplicity has risen to new heights (or lows). He lost Tennessee because that state doesn’t want their guns taken away. Maybe if Gore adopted a more stringent gun control regimen, by your logic, he would have carried Tennessee. Whatever it is that you are smoking has been inhaled deeply.

    “At the end of the day, if the Democrats can’t beat the ignoramus George Bush, no matter how many third parties are in the race, they should admit that they are incompetent buffoons, fold up, and give a real progressive party a chance.”

    I have to express some sympathy for your evaluation of Bush, but your “real progressive party” is who? Is it the Green Party? Geez, I thought Nader ran on that banner in 2000. I guess the Greens did not want him in 2004, and they do not want him now. So Nader, who talked up the Greens in 2000, now also runs against their candidate for President. Are the Greens to be vilified now as well? What about Nader’s busting of an attempt to unionize one of his magazines called “Multinational Monitor”? I guess union busting is only bad when it is done by big bad corporations! From Ralph Nader, friend of the working man: “”Public interest groups are like crusades…you can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5.” “Anything that is commercial, is unionizable,” but small public interest organizations “would go broke in a month,” Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day.” This despite the fact that the secretive Nader organizations have amassed hundreds of thousands of dollars, and Saint Ralph himself is a millionaire. Yes, lets talk about corrupt, corporate types masquerading as a friend to working people. From realchange.org “When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization (“Essential Information”) that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.”
    On top of all that I do not believe that the Democrats, Greens, or anyone else for that matter will stand aside for a buffoon like Nader who managed to get such a miniscule vote percentage in the last election. His hypocrisy has been exposed, and no amount of his endless pontificating drivel will send him over 1 percent nationally.

    Like

  13. ohplease says:

    “But I noticed that you didn’t talk about guns.”

    Maybe if Gore hadn’t flip-flopped on gun control as it was politically convenient, and instead maintained a consistant position, he would have won points on integrity. If people not only disagree with your positions, but have cause to question your integrity, don’t blame Nader when you lose. You have much to learn from people in your own party when it comes to giving up on red states like “Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi.” Howard Dean has a sensible idea, the “50 state strategy,” for the Democratic Party, unlike the DLC triangulation strategy which has failed miserably time and again. Your ideas are the ideas of failure.

    “but your “real progressive party” is who?”

    Many could better qualify for such a title than the corporate Democrat party.

    “I guess the Greens did not want him in 2004, and they do not want him now.”

    Unlike the Democrats, Nader embraces dissent and debate. I guess the 12% of Florida Democrats didn’t want Gore in 2000. That was well thought out. You should really not throw stones when you live in a glass house.

    “I guess union busting is only bad when it is done by big bad corporations!”

    If you actually cared about the truth, instead of digging up ridiculous anti-Nader talking points, you would have seen, for example, the film “An Unreasonable Man,” where Nader’s opponents disparage Nader for his demanding nature but grudgingly admit that the only one who worked harder, longer hours than them was Nader himself. You really don’t understand what’s at stake for the American people if you think that challenging the system, with as many factors stacked against one as there are, is a cushy 9-to-5 job. The resources available for fighting corporate rule are scarce. If you don’t like that, work for the Democratic party instead and feed at the trough. Nader makes no bones about being frugal and knowing how to get the most out of a campaign dollar.

    “Nader organizations have amassed hundreds of thousands of dollars, and Saint Ralph himself is a millionaire.”

    If you were interested in the truth instead of brainless smears, you would note that Nader himself lives off of $25,000 a year, doesn’t own a car, and gives his stock earnings to non-profit organizations. Compare that to Barack Obama’s million dollar Rezko deals and Gore’s mega-carbon hypocritical life-style. Y
    ou only point out the failures of the Democrats.

    “agreeing to drop the intimidation suit…”

    Ha. You really don’t get it. The Democratic party, which litigated Nader off of the ballot in many states in 2004, in addition to engaging in other illegal anti-democratic maneuvers like purposely sabotaging petitions for Nader, has no moral authority to talk about intimidation suits. The Democratic party is a
    gang of thugs.

    “who managed to get such a miniscule vote percentage in the last election”

    Despite the illegal, anti-democratic, anti-voter tactics of the Democratic party. And now, the Democrats are giving Nader voters on a silver platter by their repeated demonstration that “Saint Ralph” was right after all. The Democrats authorized the war and continue to support it. The Democrats passed free trade agreements into being, whine about them for public perceptions, but take repealing them off the table. There really is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, and since the 2006 elections the Democrats have bent over backwards to vindicate Nader. If you take issue with that, blame the Dems.

    Like

  14. Jules Gordon says:

    Your Honor,

    Ohplease seems to believe George Bush would be the biggest idiot if it wasn’t for Al Gore, John Kerry, the Republicans and Democrats.

    I know what ohplease doesn’t believe in. Question is what who would ohplease like to run for office?

    Jules

    Like

  15. D.J. says:

    The Democrats need to put this Nader clip from “Sesame Street” everywhere. While it is amusing, it serves as a true testament to what his frequent candidacies really are: A JOKE.

    Like

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