WHY is Nader doing this? Sure, Gore is still “a tool of corporate America”, but compared to BUSH ferkrissake? I mean, Nader is the GREEN party cand, and Gore is about as pro-environment as you can get, and still get elected. Gore is a bit too “green” for me, even. But nearly 90% of Naders support will leech from Gore, and it could cost Gore a critical state…and then Nader will have succeded in putting Bush, the “environmental antichrist” in the oval office. What is Nader thinking?
Note, I am slightly pro-Gore, but I am still undecided. I don’t like Gores anti-gun stance, eg. But as far as strictly environmental issues go, Gore’s “da man”.
Better a man who will cut down a tree with a chainsaw than with an axe, in the thinking (if I may use the word) of the watermelons. In that happens, they will be able to raise a lot more money and cause a lot more hysteria.
Naturally, I would not be so cynical as to suggest that this is actually their goal.
That’s ridiculous. I intend to vote fot Nader–barring something drastic. He represents my views to a far greater degree than Gore does. The green party is not just about the environment…(note that I do not support all green party candidates–I had Joel Kovel, candidate for NY Senate, for a teacher; the man is completely insane).
The truth of the matter is that neither Gore nor Bush will do anyting deviating from the middle of the road. I’d prefer Gore, but Bush will not wreck this country. So I’m using my vote to say that I support third parties and liberals who are actually liberal.
For those of you playing along at home: “Watermelon” is a term used to describe self-proclaimed environmental organizations that are really proponents of socialism or communism. They’re green on the outside but pinko on the inside. In the opinion of some, most environmentalists fall into this category.
With the selection of Joe Lieberman, Nader’s has been proven right: the Democrats are going heavily for the conservative-moderate vote, while taking liberals for granted. The way that Gore flodded the river for a photo-op while the Tennessee River Valley was in the middle of a drought might have irked him too.
Yeah. The left feels abandon. The democrats not only do not represent our views, but they seem to openly revile them. “Liberal” is now a dirty word. Leiberman, while an ingenious choice, is pretty darn right wing.
I’m not going to vote for someone that ignores me and panders to my enemies (ack! such a strong word) out of the assumption that I will vote for him no matter what, just to keep Bush out. I am not going to vote for someone I do not agree with just because he happens to be a somewhat closer mediocre moderate to me than the other one. I am going to vote for someone who wants my vote and who represents me. even if it is a cry in the dark, at least I did what I feel is right and maybe someone somewhere will hear.
Fact is that the economy is good so no one needs us anymore. Heck if I’m gonna vote for Gore. Nader is my conscience and my vote.
Nader says that “you can’t spoil a political system that’s already spoiled to the core.” He says if the election were simply between Gore and Bush, he wouldn’t vote. Gore is similar to Bush on most issues, and he’s only better in gay rights, the environment and abortion.
Nader isn’t worried about throwing the election to Bush. He encounters that question everywhere. Here’s a Crossfire transcript where Press and Novak were asking him about that the whole half hour:
This is a flat-out lie. I don’t particularly care for Gore, but I do hate to see a lie perpetuated. Harper’s magazine published the statistics on this–the amount of water released for this was actually * far less * than the amount released on a normal day.
Gore’s choice of Leiberman is purely symbolic-intended to distance himself from Clinton. That symbolism will also alienate blacks and union voters-who may just stay home and not vote.
Clinton/Gore have already alienated their hard core liberal constituency. The dems are truly desperate this year. It will be fun watching their writhing hystrionics in (hopefully) a losing attempt at the White House. With any luck, they’ll lose the Congress, too.
Not exactly on topic but I find Nader to be the single most humourless politician I have ever seen. I can’t entirely trust a man who lacks the capacity to laugh at himself every now and then. But perhaps I’ve missed the part of the TV campaign where Ralph revealed his humorous side…
Nader’s hosted SNL either twice or three times, so he’s not totally humorless…
The other day he made about a million jokes at the American Psychiatric Association convention, mostly about corporations having variations of mental illness (HMO’s: Attention Deficit Disorder. The drug industry: kleptomania.)
He also said if the same standards were applied to people as they were for corporations and nations, they’d be considered insane:
“Imagine if a family spent 20 percent of its budget to defend against a non-existant enemy, to the detriment of feeding and clothing their children.”
Not exactly rolling-on-the-floor-funny, but it’s a nice kind of dry humor that I like.
I liked Lieberman’s quote about “either way you get your dog back”…
Under Clinton/Gore, large tracts of our National Forests have been declared off-limits to logging, and a moratorium on new logging roads has been imposed. (Do you think this policy would remain in effect under Bush?)
Under Clinton/Gore, clean air standards and clean water standards are being actively enforced. (Would this continue under Bush?)
No, the record of the Democrats on the environment may not be perfect. I mean, they haven’t converted all of our national forests to national parks, and prohibited all logging, if that’s what you’re looking for. They haven’t outlawed the internal combustion engine, if that’s what you’re looking for. They haven’t required every homeowner to scrap their air conditioning systems, if that’s what you’re looking for.
There are political and economic realities which simply do not allow “perfect” environmental solutions. The Democrats work for environmental protection within the context of those realities. The Green Party, though its goals may be admirable, is ultimately unrealistic.
Perhaps I should have phrased my question more carefully.
The OP states “Gore is about as pro-environment as you can get.” On what does he base that statement?
Gore has somehow managed to get himself a reputation as the “environmental” vice president. Does this repuation have any basis in reality? Yeah, I know he wrote Earth in the Balance (which I have not read), but did he not rescind much of what he argued in that book?
Clinton/Gore have done some things that make environmentalists happy. This does not make them environmentalists. Also, “Clinton/Gore” does not equal “Gore” (as Al is doing his darndest to emphasize!)
Ah, Bob Novak. The liberal media strikes again. :rolleyes: Here’s another view, this one from the Post, concerning Lieberman’s centrist bent. And another, albeit from the liberal Madison Capital Times, showing Lieberman’s more conservative record.
Robert Novak…yup, that’s an unbiased source. grin Anyone see George Will’s approval of the choice of Lieberman? That’s telling, IMHO.