Uh...

Gore did win the presidency in 2000. Greg Palast proved it to my satisfaction. Bush was appointed in 2000 by the Supreme Court and we haven't had a democratically elected president since.

Yes la molina, I agree. However it may be argued that if Gore had won the popular vote with a wider margin we would not have found ourselves with an appointed president. That is the argument of people who see Nader as the spoiler in the 2000 election.

I really do not think that Gore's narrow margin in the popular vote is is what actually led us to "Bush v. Gore", unlawfully handing the 2000 U.S. presidential election to George W. Bush. It would not have been a "narrow margin" in Florida but for dirty Republican tricks. Purging the voter rolls to disenfranchise Democratic voters, confusing butterfly ballots, Katherine Harris, etc...

I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000. To this day I am unrepentant! I also think "The Spoiler" concept is in retrospect, a "Red Herring" as to how the election was stolen.

I voted for Nader and I don't regret it. He was, in my mind, the candidate that best represented the issues I care about and the only one not cutting the corporations any slack. And if nothing else, Nader brought out a lot of important issues the other candidates chose to overlook.

Nez, I've always said that anyone can run and anyone can vote for who they want.

But the truth here is that great wealth finds every way it can to protect itself. If someone volunteers to help them-- and especially if he succeeds in doing damage-- he's not a hero and he deserves only to be shunned.

Gore was fighting against a systematic media propaganda campaign that libeled and slandered him to the point that the race was competitive. That should have been a clear signal to Nader that Gore represented a serious threat to entrenched power. Instead, he pretended that there's no difference between the political parties.

So, sure, people should get involved, study the issues, and be prepared to fight for their candidate. The rich are never going to give away their power. But in the battles of 2000 and 2004, Nader was a traitor because he gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

Charles,

If "The rich are never going to give away their power" and we can't control our own government or have large policy changes through voting and elections, what do do suggest? Armed revolution by the people?

Who is this "enemy" Nader gave comfort to and does it make me a traitor too because I voted for him?

Okay, I've been googling about the Green Party primaries in general and I'm confused as hell. Where does Cynthia McKinney come into this scenario, and are the primaries concluded for the Green Party? And why is the press painting this as if Nader has just announced his candidacy if he's been appearing on primary ballots in California and Massachusetts? Even though the delegate count places him slightly ahead of McKinney, there's nothing to signify the primaries are over from what I've seen.

And what about this whole thing about not announcing his candidacy in time to receive matching funds?

I fully admit being naive about the workings of the Green Party and conducting Google searches for most of this information. But could someone clarify this for me?

Edit: I just read this press release from the party itself and it makes a little more sense, but not really. And if it would derail this conversation too much to unpack my concerns, there's no need to indulge it. It just bothered my brain.

Sometimes I think there is a great conspiracy and at other times I feel foolish to believe that the powers that be are that smart. BUT, could it be that Nader is being paid by conservatives to keep rolling along to make their chances of winning that much more possible? Ralph Nader has never come close to winning a campaign, so why does he think he has a chance now? He does ask good questions that no one else has the courage to do, but he doesn't get very far. Why not give someone else a real chance to "get there" who can inspire us to take our government back? Could the spoiler have a dark alternative motive for entering the campaign now, like money being given him by the very ones he claims hold us hostage or could it be just his ego taking over again? I don't know, but I do see him as a spoiler at this point in the game.

M, thanks for that information. It cleared up some questions that I had, too.

Chi Chi, I believe more in ego than I do in conspiracy for the most part. (9/11 still has me asking a lot of questions, but that is for another thread.) Nader can't 'spoil' because voters have free will and if they feel their concerns are not being addressed by the majority parties, then I respect the choice to vote for Nader. Look, although I will use my vote strategically I don't believe anyone is obliged to make that choice.

It's an awful dilemma.

I share people's anxiety about spoilage. I think the Repugs learned from the Perot experience that splitting the other guy's vote can be a powerful tool.

But I have an even deeper anxiety too. I don't think either "major party" represents the people. Any time we try to break their lock on power, we will be spoiling things for the major-party candidate who is the lesser evil. So when?

I spoke at the same rally in Washington DC against the Walt Disney Co. with him in 1994 and you could not convince me that he has some dark motive. It doesn't sound as if you really know that much about him. Although many tried to get the dirt on him during the 1960's for challenging corporate interests, he always came out clean. He still does.

I was pissed when I heard Nader was running, but I respect and listen to you. And, though I don't have enough time, energy, or confidence in this system to get as involved as I probably should, I do agree with what you wrote about this over at All About Race. So I'll reserve my pissed-ness till we can see what's gonna happen next.

Ralph Nader's reasons for getting into the campaign are not clear to me. If Ralph really thought he could change things by being involved in electoral politics he's had about 50 years to do so.

I don't subscribe to him being a willing tool of the reichwing; but I think they welcome his candidacy. Between Nader (who I think is an egotist of the first water) and Ron Paul (who is a complete opportunist and a nutbag asshole) they might be tip the scales in a state or two towards McCain.

I have no children so it shouldn't make any difference to me what happens to future generations if we stand on the sidelines or lodge a protest vote. But, if for no other reason than that vague notion of justice, I would like to see the country returned to some semblance of what it's supposed to be--that will not happen if McCain is elected.

Nader says good things to bad ends. I can't decide whether to love or hate him.

In any case, this election will be decided by silly people, who are controlled, to whatever extent they can be, by smart and rich people, as all elections are.

For the first time in a while, I'm believing that the silly people will vote for a Democrat.

Nader's right to criticize Democrats, but I prefer them, because I have given up on the idea that anyone who truly represents ME will hold office in this or any country.

My views are kinda out-of-the-mainstream. Whose country do you think this is, yours? That's what the rich think, and they're richer than you are.

(Also, the extent to which I care whether or not anyone voted for Nader in 2000 depends on whether or not they voted in Florida. I voted for him in Maryland, but I knew Gore would take my state no matter for whom I voted.)

Me thinks his seatbelt was too tight and cut off the oxygen to his little brains...
politics blew all naders cred as an advocate. big career mistake on his part.
btw. hey scott, how ya like omalleys midnite tax parties!

This raises a lot of red flags for me. Who's providing the funding for his campaign? I seem to recall that he pretty much bankrupted the Green Party during his 2000 election campaign that only helped get G.W. into office. I'm also very concerned about the timing of his decision to run for president, now that the only remaining G.O.P. choices are perpetual war or Old Testament Law it's pretty clear this next election will go to the Democrats. So why wait to jump in to the race until right now that the momentum has swung to the candidate that is slightly more to the left (very slightly)? I mean it almost looks like he's Whitey's last ditch effort to keep the candidate that is least pro establishment out of office. He's obviously not interested in winning or he would have started working on his campaign when everyone else did. I mean, Kucinich had an identical platform and he was completely ignored and ridiculed by the media. So why are they paying any attention to Nader now?

I fear he's going to have a similar effect on this election as he did in 2000 multiplied a few times over by media hype. I can't imagine what he hopes to gain from this except for ego gratification.

I hope I'm wrong.

La Molina, I don't criticize people for who they vote for. Even most Republican voters think they are voting for good things.

But leaders have to be held to a higher standard.

Nader has received plenty of money from Republicans. Their funding is generally targeted to swing states. Nader pretends that this doesn't matter, that he's just using rich people's money to make the Democrat be true to the principles s/he claims.

But the end result is George Bush and payoffs of hundreds of billions of dollars to people who put up a lot less to back Nader.

Nader knows better, even if his followers don't.

I do not like Nader, but not for the loss of the 2000 and 2004 elections.

My reasons have to do with how he came to my campus in the mid-1990's to defend the "PIRG fee" automatically attached to student tuition bills unless they go through the hassle of opting out. When he spoke to us, he came across to me more as an overentitled telemarketer when he said "PIRG is working for everyone's interest."

Even assuming that statement is true, no organization is automatically entitled to contributions from others unless they are convinced of its merits and voluntarily contribute as a result. I do not agree with the "you pay unless you opt-out crap" mentality.