I consider myself Green, and I have always resented that Ralph Nader used my party to defeat Al Gore, who even in 2000 had clearly greener policies.
What the hell are his ideals?
Besides saving the world from the Corvair (that’s an usafe car, folks) what qualifies him to be POTUS?
But the Green Party solicited him. Why didn’t they throw their support to Gore? Why didn’t Gore run a better campaign? Why was he so stiff? Why wait until after he barely lost to show he had a sense of humor and was human?
I am one of those Greens that voted for Nader. However, that was a vote from Bush, not Gore. I was a Republican; I was looking forward to voting for either McCain or Bradley. Instead I got the idiot child of a poor President and his evil puppet masters vs. the Robotic Al Gore with the cackling near Neo-con and Theo-con Democrat from Connecticut. So it was for Nader I voted. If Gore had run a better campaign, he would have won me and many others over. If he has courted the Greens, he would not have had Nader to blame for his own campaign failures. Those who voted for Nader did not take votes from Gore; Gore lost those votes on his own.
Jim
If you already knew Gore was the better candidate, why should he need to convince you?
I think they sold out, Nader’s platform had nothing at all to say environmentally.
I never saw why people thought Gore was so “stiff.”
But, ugh Lieberman…don’t remind me.
Was that addressed to me? If so, where did I say I knew he was a better candidate? I sure did not mean to.
The Green Party thought they had a chance to pull 5% of the vote and actually become a party of a little substance. Nadar was a well known figure willing to lend his name to the effort. I can’t explain why the Green Party did not like Gore enough to just throw support to him, but they did not.
As to the stiff part, you might not get it, but please believe me that I honestly found him so. I regret my opinion today and my only solace is that Gore won my state despite my vote, so at least I was not directly responsible for the first term of Bush by my vote.
Jim
http://www.nader.org/ Absolutely not a one trick pony.
The Green Party (of which I am a registered member)'s dogged pursuit of Ralph Nader is frustrating. Though I have enormous respect for Nader’s accomplishments and beliefs, the party continues to bend over backwards in every which way to please please please please please get him as our candidate despite his perennial coyness and overall lack of interest in the partisan Green cause. Just take Cynthia McKinney and run with her!; to be a real party it’s necessary to advance beyond being a cult of personality.
Well, that’s certainly begging the question. He runs for president because very few people know about his ideals. I don’t think he really wants to be president. But if you’re seriously interested, you can check his website, as listed above. He’s not just interested in consumer safety.
Well according to the “developing news” banner on CNN he is running. And the impact will be nil.
He’s really becoming just a caricature of himself.
…and just who supports Nader, anyway?
From here:
Hmmm. CNN carried a Breaking News about it, but 27 minutes into the BBC’s news for this hour and they’ve yet to mention it. They just finished with the world weather.
He’s suppose to announce today… and yes it does matter. He’ll take votes away from the democratic candidate, and a republican will win the election once again.
Story here on CNN.
I expect we’ll be seeing Bush/Nader 2008 teeshirts before too many days pass.
He formally announced his candidacy on Meet the Press this morning.
Nah, not this time. Obama gives people the same thing Nader does, only better. Clinton, well, Clinton could disillusion a lot of would-be Democrats, but the lesson of 2000 will mute the effect Nader will have, I think.
Wonderful. Freakin’ wonderful.
I notice no one ever blames Nader for letting Bush win the 2004 election. He seemed to be a spent force after 2000. It’s just sad seeing him embarrass himself in this manner.