I continue to be baffled by the people who fault Nader for Al Gore’s loss in 2000. Many of these people also tend to be those who never stop complaining about how limiting the two-party system is and how there’s no difference really between Democrats and Republicans - until a third party candidate makes it possible for George “Devil Incarnate” Bush to be elected (Cue: hysterical screaming about Bush’s plans to rule the world and how he stole the election).
Sorry, but a third party candidate should not take a back seat because he may be responsible for altering the outcome of some hypothetical election that only involves two candidates.
It makes me think of a West Wing episode when Josh Lyman is angry with Amy Gardner for backing a third party candidate and trying to help him get into the debates. She argues that when a third party candidate is elected it’s going to be by unlikely voters (who are never part of polling data). Josh questions why it’s so important to hear from those people who are so lazy they can’t be bothered to “raise their hands” every four years (which I kind of agree with) and then he makes the accusation that the candidate is stealing the President’s votes. Amy counters: “That right there, that’s the crazy part of your argument. They’re not his votes.” She’s absolutely right. Ralph Nader did not steal Al Gore’s votes, he did not steal John Kerry’s votes and he won’t be stealing either Barack Obama’s or Hillary Clinton’s votes because the votes don’t belong to the candidate. They belong to the voters to choose whoever they think is the best selection for the Oval Office.
Most respectfully, I think that what Jason is missing is the fact that Ralph Nader said in 2000 that there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Ralph Nader was foolish to think that then, and he is foolish to think that the republicans and the democrats are both under the control of big business. As to President Bush and Al Gore, I think that there is ample evidence of what those differences were and how they affected the United States. I am not comparing John McCain with George W. Bush, but he is championing the continuation of the War in Iraq for as long as 100 years, based upon his own statements. Haven’t we had enough of the politics of unnecessary wars and “democratic expansionism” (the communists used to call it imperialism)?
Yes, Jason is right, everyone has a right to run for president who is native born and over the age of 35. It would be nice however, if once in a while, the contestants didn’t let their egos overtake their common sense. Nader is on an ego trip and it will not help the country; it will hurt it.
Love the video.
Don’t disagree with you, Jason, but I’m still struck by the reality that doing the right thing and doing the mature thing are not always the same. I don’t personally value the notion of choice (as in infinite choice or x>2 choice) in this election over the reality that the winner will have the power to fix many of the problems either begun or ignored (and allowed to fester) by years of incompetent and non conservative administration (not conservative with lives, with money, with influence). Ralph is not making a real run. He’s running to prove a point. But the price of that point is potentially the election to one or another candidate. I don’t know whether all the indy-oriented voters would have come out anyway or not, but it’s plausible that votes will go to the 3rd party candidate that might otherwise have gone to one or the other candidates. In tight states with lots of electoral votes, it makes an enormous difference. Granted, the screwy electoral process only exacerbates the situation. With a popular vote, the effect in the 2000 election would been roughly the same, but some great old Floridians wouldn’t have voted for Mr. Airbag.
25. February 2008 at :
Did you see this?
http://www.236.com/blog/w/election08/message_to_ralph_nader_from_an_4373.php
25. February 2008 at :
I continue to be baffled by the people who fault Nader for Al Gore’s loss in 2000. Many of these people also tend to be those who never stop complaining about how limiting the two-party system is and how there’s no difference really between Democrats and Republicans - until a third party candidate makes it possible for George “Devil Incarnate” Bush to be elected (Cue: hysterical screaming about Bush’s plans to rule the world and how he stole the election).
Sorry, but a third party candidate should not take a back seat because he may be responsible for altering the outcome of some hypothetical election that only involves two candidates.
It makes me think of a West Wing episode when Josh Lyman is angry with Amy Gardner for backing a third party candidate and trying to help him get into the debates. She argues that when a third party candidate is elected it’s going to be by unlikely voters (who are never part of polling data). Josh questions why it’s so important to hear from those people who are so lazy they can’t be bothered to “raise their hands” every four years (which I kind of agree with) and then he makes the accusation that the candidate is stealing the President’s votes. Amy counters: “That right there, that’s the crazy part of your argument. They’re not his votes.” She’s absolutely right. Ralph Nader did not steal Al Gore’s votes, he did not steal John Kerry’s votes and he won’t be stealing either Barack Obama’s or Hillary Clinton’s votes because the votes don’t belong to the candidate. They belong to the voters to choose whoever they think is the best selection for the Oval Office.
25. February 2008 at :
Most respectfully, I think that what Jason is missing is the fact that Ralph Nader said in 2000 that there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Ralph Nader was foolish to think that then, and he is foolish to think that the republicans and the democrats are both under the control of big business. As to President Bush and Al Gore, I think that there is ample evidence of what those differences were and how they affected the United States. I am not comparing John McCain with George W. Bush, but he is championing the continuation of the War in Iraq for as long as 100 years, based upon his own statements. Haven’t we had enough of the politics of unnecessary wars and “democratic expansionism” (the communists used to call it imperialism)?
Yes, Jason is right, everyone has a right to run for president who is native born and over the age of 35. It would be nice however, if once in a while, the contestants didn’t let their egos overtake their common sense. Nader is on an ego trip and it will not help the country; it will hurt it.
25. February 2008 at :
Love the video.
Don’t disagree with you, Jason, but I’m still struck by the reality that doing the right thing and doing the mature thing are not always the same. I don’t personally value the notion of choice (as in infinite choice or x>2 choice) in this election over the reality that the winner will have the power to fix many of the problems either begun or ignored (and allowed to fester) by years of incompetent and non conservative administration (not conservative with lives, with money, with influence). Ralph is not making a real run. He’s running to prove a point. But the price of that point is potentially the election to one or another candidate. I don’t know whether all the indy-oriented voters would have come out anyway or not, but it’s plausible that votes will go to the 3rd party candidate that might otherwise have gone to one or the other candidates. In tight states with lots of electoral votes, it makes an enormous difference. Granted, the screwy electoral process only exacerbates the situation. With a popular vote, the effect in the 2000 election would been roughly the same, but some great old Floridians wouldn’t have voted for Mr. Airbag.