Here’s an illustrative difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. These were their reactions to Ralph Nader’s announcement of another quixotic—though potentially impacting—run for the White House:
Obama: “I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference.”
Clinton: “Obviously it’s not helpful to whoever our Democratic nominee is, but it’s a free country. …I don’t know what party he’ll run on. Where did he run on last time? Does anybody remember? … Was it on the Green Party? Well, you know, his being on the Green Party prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had, and I think that’s really unfortunate. I think we paid a big price for it. … This time I hope it doesn’t hurt anyone.”
Guess which one gets it?
Categories: Politics/Law/Government
Progressive Culture | Scholars & Rogues 
How true that article is. And how true the observation about Alphabet cheerleader voters.
Vote for issues, not letters. Vote for your own best interest not blind alphabet obedience.
Spend some time at places like Democratic Underground, Americablog or Eschaton and see the Nader hate rise like a blind beast.
I recall one Escahtonian, I think she subbed for Duncan, who in 2k virtually demanded everyone vote as she did. This from an elite Texas self-proclaimed Democrat married to an elite Texas Republican pioneer!
How pathetic some of the people are. How ignorant.
Scum.
James, Scum.
Yeah, thanks for that, whatever it meant. *shrug*
The very reasons you gave for Al Gore losing the race “alienated several million voters with his arrogance, condescension and moral superiority complex” are the very same reasons I would not vote for Senator Obama. He is a great orator but the distain he looks at Hillary Clinton with through out the debates leads me to the decision that he too has much too much arrogance to be my leader. Years ago I wrote my Mother’s name on my ballot because I could not vote for anyone who was running in either party and I really now fully understand the votes “Mickey Mouse” receives.
Yeah I figured ol’ Ralphy boy would jump in at the last like usual. Fact is, he’s got zilch to offer and never has had anything but his own self-righteousnes to recommend him. Does he really think he’s tipping us to how screwed up things are? And like he could fix it all? He’s a fool and always has been. And is a has-been now.
You keep telling yourself that Nader had NO adverse impact on either election (by adverse i mean tipping the scales to BUSH) and keep telling yoursleves that YOU are NOT responsible for one million dead Iraqis, and close to 4 thousand dead American Service personnel, and keep telling yourself that it’s ok that NADER got tons of cash from republicans, and then tell me you sleep WELL at night and that ANY Democrat (excepting Lieberman) would have done a better job than BUSH
Mike, Shrug.
Why do you hate America? -fart-
Yeah right. Go ahead and throw your vote away and let McCain get into the White House. There is nothing brave about not being smart enough to see the writing on the wall. Our system is designed and fuctions as a two party system. I would love to see a legitamate multi-party system, but thats not going to happen unless we make constitutional changes. If you think you can create a multi-party system out of thin air, you are delusional. Recognize that we have only two real parties and vote accordniningly. I agree that it sucks, but that is reality not matter how far you bury your head in the sand.
“He is a great orator but the distain he looks at Hillary Clinton with through out the debates leads me to the decision that he too has much too much arrogance to be my leader.”
I’d like you to find me a single YouTube video (or wherever else) that shows Obama looking at Clinton with disdain at the debates. I know of one regrettable moment, when Obama said Hillary “was likeable enough” but he said it with disappointment, not disdain, and it was unnecessary. Haven’t seen him do or say anything even remotely like that since.
“Mike, Shrug. Why do you hate America?”
Are you at all capable of elaborating on that, or do you always troll so shitty?
Dang, Mike – you appear to have kicked over a beehive….
Machiavelli – I wonder sometimes if our two party system wasn’t intentional so much as an unfortunate example of the law of unintended consequences.
“keep telling yoursleves that YOU are NOT responsible for one million dead Iraqis, and close to 4 thousand dead American Service personnel, and keep telling yourself that it’s ok that NADER got tons of cash from republicans, and then tell me you sleep WELL at night”
That was a Michael Powell-sized leap of logic. Quit paying your taxes then, since they’re supporting the very same military who killed said Iraqis.
“And like he could fix it all? He’s a fool and always has been. And is a has-been now.”
Are you Randy Crow by chance?
Ralph who? Aren’t there enough republicans in this race already? Why do we need this Ralph person?
Seriously, the voters rejected Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards. Ralph has nothing to offer this race.
“If you think you can create a multi-party system out of thin air, you are delusional.”
Let me guess, you didn’t have this venom in you when Perot helped Bubba into the Oval Office, eh? Yeah, thought not.
Holy shit, someone else noticed that St. Albert fucked up in 2000. I thought it was just me.
“Dang, Mike – you appear to have kicked over a beehive”
I’m just shaking my head at watching the bees all sting each other.
“Holy shit, someone else noticed that St. Albert fucked up in 2000. I thought it was just me.”
Had Al Gore been Al Gore in 2000, Al Gore would’ve won handily.
Obama’s learned from history. A few others evidently haven’t.
Sorry, but in a closely divided country, where small differences in the vote can decide the presidency, Ralph Nader indeed has the potential to be a big spoiler for the Democratic party.
Now if he’d jumped into the primaries and campaigned like any respectable candidate, taken his licks at debates, my view would be different.
And I appreciate his view that all candidates are too corporate-centric. (It was interesting to see democrats reject Edwards so soundly.)
But principle, and practicality, can be two different things.
So…now that Nader’s ‘running,’ what, exactly, are his policies? And even more critically, how would he get Congress to implement them?
Or is it just more fiery rhetoric from a campaign already awash in empty words?
Your article is fine.
Oh, I’m sorry…I actually have watched each debate as they happened, so I can’t tell you where the distain is on youtube. (I thought youtube was all about houses decorated with Christmas lights set to Russian symphonies. My mistake. lol)
I saw the looks during the last debate especially, like she is a lowly non-entity who really doesn’t belong next to him. They are side glancing slight lip smurking looks that say volumns about the man to me.
cc, fixed your comment for ya.
“I saw the looks during the last debate especially, like she is a lowly non-entity who really doesn’t belong next to him. They are side glancing slight lip smurking looks that say volumns about the man to me.”
Karen, anyone can interpret looks any way they want to; some shallow negative opinions of Obama no doubt have been bolstered by CNN’s unflattering still shot of Obama they use every time they project him winning a state. He looks like he’s smelling his own piss. Awful… thanks CNN. At any rate, Karen, you oughta judge him on what he says and does, not how he looks. Regardless, as I’ve seen most of the debates as well, I think he learned from the disrespectful way he said Hillary was “likeable enough” and has been a gentleman to her since.
Yeah, thanks for that. *shrug*
Seriously? I’d love a 3rd party candidate that inserted him or herself into the mix early and took a fair chance at swinging the voters but then as so many have already done, set aside when the numbers show that it is IMPOSSIBLE for then to win the presidency. Nader ONLY wants to raise his issues in the public’s eye, which by the way, if your reading this Ralph… you may want to add a little more substance to your website, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and learn more about your positions today but instead found bullet points with no links to details. Please visit Mr. Obama’s website to understand how one details their positions. Good luck!
Do I regret voting for Nadar? Probably. Wonder how many dead people, including innocent children and babies in Iraq might be alive. Maybe Gore would have helped green the US. Do not recall why I did no like him. If Hillary Clinton were not running I might back Cynthia McKinney this year. With Hillary and the Republicans already planning to bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb Iran~I see Obama as my only choice. If Hillary’s lies and acting skills gets her the Dem bid, it will give me perverse pleasure to vote for McCain. Either way my grandchildren lose.
Nader? I think he should have backed Obama. It seems he is playing devils advocate. I know Obama supporters that will probably vote Nader. May have went for, oh, Kucinich if Hillary had not been allowed in the race~husband should automatically disqualify her, methinks. Romney~Huckabee supporters think we are in a Holy War~they may take those southern states where Obama or Clinton did well. Obama needs every vote he can get. I do like his confidence, but this election is crucial.
As far as whining supporters? I nominate Paul and Kucinich’s supporters. I do like Dennis and Elizabeth and almost voted for him in my primary. The USA is too conservative and I can not tolerate even the thought of this year with our corrupt government. Out with the old and in with the new.
Karen’s comment has me laughing.
She sits furiously writing with her lips curled into her trademark smirk and stops to laugh when he has the audacity to point out the obvious to her. “Get Real”??? She insults governors, senators, Pulitzer and Nobel prize winners, mayors, past long time government officials, Maria Shriver, the daughter of JFK and the widow of Bobby? I think Obama did a good smack down on her constant and relentless attacks on him. She has been patronizing and talk about condescending looks? She makes her I am superior to you boy feelings well known with the tone of her voice and her facial expressions. “Shame on you”? “Gimmie a break” red faced Bill Clinton angrily declares.
I have been watching the debates at You Tube. She laughs when asked about her Iraqi war vote. What is funny about the torture of other human beings and deaths of children?
Truly, Karen, she is too low and too dirty to sit at the table next to him. He has complicated her from, um, day one (she is smart and has good work ethics), before he goes into his victory speech he asks his audience to applaud her for her hard work, he asks them again to congratulate her when she wins. Always a gentlemen to her shrew.
I wish the debate people would ask her why she voted yes on the Iran Resolution and to explain why she did not mention her conflict of interest in Dubai even when she blew the whistle on GWB. Her relation is much closer (Bill) to Bush’s (brother Neil).
anyone who takes either the democrats or republicans seriously is incredibly naive.
It’s getting pretty goddamn tiresome to hear lectures on “democracy” for a constituency clearly satisfied to hand the election over a Bush clone, who will perpetuate every policy instituted by this criminal in the White House.
I also voted for Nader in 2000. Do I regret it? Absolutely. The reason is that it inflated his already hyper-inflated ego so that here and now, on the cusp of too many major crises to count, he’s once again planning to draw votes away from McCain’s opponent.
So you’re right, it isn’t Nader’s fault. It’s the Nader voters’ fault.
The problem with Nader supporters isn’t that they vote for Nader. That’s their prerogative. The problem is that they refuse to accept accountability for the consequences of their actions. To deny that not Nader, but rather Nader voters handed the election to Bush in Florida in 2000 is sophomoric. You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts: those 90,000 votes would have lead to a Gore presidency, and anyone who would doubt that this entire planet would be in a far better place as a result is simply not paying attention.
If Nader supporters were held accountable, maybe they would think twice. But they so easily write themselves a pass and absolve themselves of all accountability, it’s easy for them to throw the election to the Republicans — it’s always someone else’s fault — anyone else’s but theirs.
So go right ahead and vote for Nader, McKinney, or Rasputin for all I care. But this time, for once, act like full fledged adults and step up and assume responsibility for the consequences, not deny them like a bunch of emotionally fragile little schoolgirls who act like someone dipped their hair in the inkwell whenever reminded of their clear and unambiguous role in 2000.
Nader can’t win, he has proven that.
The only thing he can do is pollute the real debate.
If you don’t vote for some one who can win you may be left feeling superior but you have done as little to elect the next president as sitting on your hands and staying home.
Yes, a vote for a candidate who cant possibly win is a wasted vote.
My be it makes you feel good to waist your vote in making some form of political protest but honistly, if you feel that neither of the two candidates are to your liking you are better of going for a walk instead of voting, it will do you more good in the long run.
It is sad that delusional and irrational people think its more important to make a secret statement to them selves, (for in the us how you personally voted is secret), rather than actually participating in democracy and affecting the global outcome of this nation and ultimately the human race..
“So go right ahead and vote for Nader, McKinney, or Rasputin for all I care. But this time, for once, act like full fledged adults and step up and assume responsibility for the consequences, not deny them like a bunch of emotionally fragile little schoolgirls who act like someone dipped their hair in the inkwell whenever reminded of their clear and unambiguous role in 2000.”
So I’m expecting that you’re neither a Clinton or Edwards supporter, since they were *directly* responsible for the authority given to George W. Bush to wage war in Iraq and kill all those people. Right? Let me guess, you’re a Kucinich man or an Obama voter, yes? Or are ya just another shit-talking disgruntled establishment tool…
“It is sad that delusional and irrational people think its more important to make a secret statement to them selves, (for in the us how you personally voted is secret), rather than actually participating in democracy and affecting the global outcome of this nation and ultimately the human race.”
Last time I checked, voting *is* actually participating in democracy. You people with your hindsight judgmentalism and apologist fervor for the corrupt two-party system Nader talks about… *you’re* the problem. This seems to be the only history you give a shit about, as though everything before November 2000 in this country was peachy.
Please read Marty Kaplan’s post on Huffington post, pretty much echos my views.
For Nader to refuse to acknowledge his role as a spoiler (regardless of whether Gore didn’t use Bill enough…note that Hillary used him TOO much) removes any and all credibiltiy from him, which is a shame considering most progressives agree with many of his positions. Electability people. Don’t echo the old canard that ‘there really was no difference between Gore and Bush’. That’s what Nader and his supporters said. How untrue was that?
As ‘legit’ as Obama or Clinton? Naw. Ralph just bides his time in between and then jumps in using organizations that put in the work month after month, year after year and he just shows up every fourth and uses them for his own ego driven purposes.
If Nader bothered to start a party or would stay involved in the political process in between presidential elections I might take him seriously. He has the right to run and I have the right to ignore him.
“Unrepentant Liberal”
Hard to disagree with what you say. Fair criticisms.
“Or are ya just another shit-talking disgruntled establishment tool…”
Do you have an argument to make against the truth I posted, or just a torrent of childish epithets?
The simple fact is: Nader voters fall into two categories: those that accept responsibility for the consequences and hence learned from their mistakes, and those who haven’t. You haven’t. And you have the balls to lecture other people about “democracy?” Not today, bubba.
Further, you can’t even take honest critique, so your position that Bush’s ascendancy is everyone else’s fault but the Nader voters’ is not surprising, but, like your scatological reference, is a bit too grade-school to be persuasive, don’t you think?
Like Clinton claiming she learned something from her Iraq vote and then votes for Kyl-Lieberman, you’ve learned nothing, and you’re just pissed off that you’ve been called on it, that’s all.
Hey, I made a mistake. I admit it. I won’t do that again. Period. That’s my position. I’m not posting it here for your approval, because I frankly don’t live for your love.
So, you just go right ahead and vote for Nader, and continue to blame everyone else for the consequences of your actions. Hey, it’s your blog. You win and I’m just a shit-talker. Congratulations.
“Nader voters fall into two categories: those that accept responsibility for the consequences and hence learned from their mistakes, and those who haven’t. You haven’t”
This post isn’t about Nader voters. It’s about whiny, pissy, arrogant, sour-grape-sucking, acrimonious, divisive establishment Democrats who cannot reconcile their stunted worldview with the fact that Al Gore lost in 2000 because AL GORE LOST. To blame his lack of backbone and his inability to compel Americans from all walks of life to support him (including SEVEN MILLION DEMOCRATS who voted for Bush!) on some third-partier who scored a tiny fraction of the vote reveals everything we need to know about you.
Where is this righteous anger of yours against Ross Perot? How about the injustice he served with his vanity run on George H. W. Bush? The man had a party created in his wake that he then abandoned. How is he any different than Nader? Oh yeah… Perot benefited the Democrats and got Bubba elected! Of course. That’s different.
And by the way if you’d read my whole post or previous posts, you’d know I’m solidly behind Obama.
“I’’m just a shit-talker”
Thank you for playing.
“Yes, I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Do I regret it? Absolutely not.”
I hope 7 years of Bush “leadership” did hurt you economically and politically. This deserves you right for your stupidity.
“I hope 7 years of Bush “leadership†did hurt you economically and politically. This deserves you right for your stupidity.”
Keep sucking on them sour grapes, Gray. And start emailing the 7 million Democrats that voted for Bush in 2000.
“Al Gore lost in 2000 because AL GORE LOST”
That’s what you call logic? Al Gore lost, even though he was clearly the better candidate, because too many people let themselves be fooled by the media, which was openly hostile. And others, like maybe you, vote fpr Nader out of ideological reasons, knowing very well that he ain’t got no chance in hell to win. A Nader candidacy doesn’t change anything, because other candidates don’t care for his lunatic program. And he isn’t “as valid a candidate as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John McCain”. He is not even as vaild a candidate as Denis Kucinich, who at least influenced the other campaigns with his candidacy.
Nader won’t become president, McCain or Obama (maybe Clinton) will. And if you can’t make a reasonable decision between those two sides, you can’t be helped.
“And start emailing the 7 million Democrats that voted for Bush in 2000.”
Why should I? They already know by now that they totally screwed up with their vote.
Nader did not hand the white house to bush. Diebold and the felonious 5 on the supreme court handed Bush the white house. Gore won. Don’t bash Nader because the american electorate is stupid and chooses from the same one party, two sided coin every damn time and sits by complacently as election after election is stolen.
“Nader won’t become president, McCain or Obama (maybe Clinton) will. And if you can’t make a reasonable decision between those two sides, you can’t be helped.” – “’And start emailing the 7 million Democrats that voted for Bush in 2000.’ – Why should I? They already know by now that they totally screwed up with their vote.”
For someone who claims to know what seven million people think, you can’t be bothered to read my full post or my previous comments or posts, in which I clearly express my full support for Barack Obama, should he be the Dem nominee come November.
“For someone who claims to know what seven million people think”
I read the polls, like everybody else. Bush is down to about 30%, so it’s reasonable to think he lost every independent and cross party voter, and is down to the GOP hardcore base.
“I clearly express my full support for Barack Obama, should he be the Dem nominee come November.”
My point focussed on the mindset that made no difference between Gore and Bush and saw no problem in wasting the vote on Nader. Obviously, you see no difference between Clinton and McCain, too. Wasting time and energy on wishful thinking instead of supporting reasonable steps that will lead to an improvment is the real problem. A vote for Nader is unreasonable, but it seems to make you comfortable, so you take this into consideration. That’s voting by guts, but not by brain. And, maybe, once the media starts to ridicule Obama, like they did with Gore, your guts may turn against him. Who knows.
Oh yes, the jack-in-the-box is BACK. Every 4 years Nader gives us poor Americans a dose of his genius only to disappear for 4 more years until the next election. Why has Nader not been in Bush’s face about turning America into a fascist state??? SILENCE
Please Ralph, do us all a favor and just keep your ass in Washington where you belong because there are not enough of us out here that think you are real. Does the word opportunistic come to your mind, if not, it should. STFU we don’t care what you are saying because you never said it for the last 4 years. You are as bad as Bush.
“A vote for Nader is unreasonable, but it seems to make you comfortable, so you take this into consideration. That’s voting by guts, but not by brain. And, maybe, once the media starts to ridicule Obama, like they did with Gore, your guts may turn against him. Who knows”
Dude, first you claim to know what I think, and it’s obvious you don’t, then you claim to know what seven million people think, then point to polls which sample a thousand or so at most, then you say “Who knows.” Flip, flop… now fly. It’s been fun, but now it’s tiresome. Peace.
“Had Al Gore been Al Gore in 2000, Al Gore would’ve won handily.”
One other example, where a more rational decision making would have led to other results. I mean, is it rational to believe that Al Gore was a different person during the campaign 2000? Of course not. What kind of guy he was, reasonable, but not without passions, with a focus on both technological improvements and safeguarding the environment, was very well known by then. Those idiotic camapign managers and advisers tried to change his image into what they thought would be more popular, ok, but everybody who really cared to look for informations about the man couldn’t be fooled. And Bush wasn’t in the same league at all, not even close. Every real progressive should have had no problems in deciding who was the better choice for the US. Wasting the vote on a candidate who had no chance, but looked even more progressive, was no rational decision. If you disagree, I recommend reading some stuff about game theory. Voting for Nader was no winning move, under any circumstances.
“point to polls which sample a thousand or so at most”
I also recommend reading some stuff about the theory behind polls.
|-(
Gray said:
“I hope 7 years of Bush “leadership†did hurt you economically and politically. This deserves you right for your stupidity.”
That wasn’t very nice to wish bad things to happen to other people. Karma is a bitch.
Although I disagree with 85% of the content of this blog, I would never dream of wishing ill to anyone, even of the folks who slammed me at every turn. Even though the philosophies of this group are of diametric opposition to my core values, I respect each and every person associated with this site. Their approaches differ with mine, but they’re all patriotic Americans that want the best for this great country(as misguided as I might find them). Different opinions…..as well as they’re well thought out, logical, and rational are something I respect and will heartily debate. I don’t respect wishing anyone bad fortune as it’s just plain bad manners.
Jeff
“
Try working for Nader and see how compassionate and inspiring he is! And yeah, how MUCH cash did he get for drawing votes away from Gore? He lives in or near Washington, D.C., which means he must be seriously on the take, like everyone else. The one thing Gore did that really knocked him down was his refusal to embrace Clinton as his one time friend and president. Gore has as much baggage in D.C. as anyone else. No, YOU look it up.
The author doesn’t have clue. Of course Nader was a factor in the 2000 election. His supporter base was clearly democratic. In Florida, he represented thousands of votes, and Gore only lost by 500 or so.
“The author doesn’t have clue.”
250,000 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida in 2000. Factor that. Your party screwed you, Nader didn’t. But keep on grasping at straws there and living in the past, the rest of us are moving on. And please, re-read what Obama said about Nader’s entry into the race. He gets it. You don’t.
Your points about Gore’s compromised candidacy in 2000 are what I have told any Democratic friend who starts whining about Nader. It’s like the protestation of the philanderer who tells the husband, when he is caught with the man’s wife-if you were making her happy, I wouldn’t be here. If the Dems had ANY kind of candidates, Ralph would quite happily devote himself to other things. This is an instance of Ralph appealing to the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
Its simple arithmatic. Gore supposedly lost by a few hundred votes in Florida. Not counting the dirty shenanigans by Republicans to discount votes, still had Nader not run, Gore would have made up the difference. Nader gave us 8 years of Bush hell. The kicker is, he’s such a spiteful bastard that he did it again in 04 and now in 08. I used to have respect for him but no more. The guy is a greedy (he gets to keep all those campaign contributions you know, just like Ron Paul – gee, is that why they’re running?), selfish (caring more about spiteing the Democrats then the best interests of the country), egotistical jerk. His claim to fame is seat belts – yea! He’s been milking it ever since.
The only polls taken of Nader supporters was done by the Nader campaign.
And,like my informal survey of all the conservatives around me in Missouri, Nader’s appeal crosses the political spectrum.
Many are just now realizing that the pocketbook issues of populism strongly appeal to working class people of all political persuasions.
Nader was the first in recent history to remind us of that.
It seems to be a lesson that has had to be relearned over and over.
“If you’re going to say Nader cost Gore a win in Florida, you might have to say the same thing about any of a list of lesser-known possible spoilers. David McReynolds, the Socialist candidate in 2000, got 622 votes in Florida. Give ’em to Gore and he’d have won regardless of Nader. Or give Gore the lion’s share of the Libertarian, Constitution Party or Natural Law Party vote in Florida, and get there that way.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/02/spoilage.html
To those who hate the war and blame Nader: I hope you stopped paying your taxes. It is your tax dollars that make the killing possible.
This is a way to protest that has some personal risk and REALLY puts your money where your mouth is.
“That wasn’t very nice to wish bad things to happen to other people. Karma is a bitch.”
Yup, you’re right, Jeff. I became annoyed because the Nader voters of 2000 still don’t see that their irrational decision brought trouble to the whole world. Sry.
“Try working for Nader and see how compassionate and inspiring he is!”
Just like Edwards. So, what? Voting for Nader still doesn’t make any sense, tfz.
“250,000 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida in 2000.”
Don’t you see your double standard, Mike? You point to those Dems, but at the same time you say folks like you who voted for Nader did nothing wrong? The awful truth is, every vote that didn’t go to Gore was more or less a vote for the horrible Bush presidency. And it’s not as if it hadn’t been clear who was the better candidate, from a liberal point of view.
“Guess which one gets it, and which one has taken command of the doomed and disgruntled Army of Whiners?”
I don’t know. Maybe it was the person who said this “Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you’re not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work.” Doesn’t sound like Sen. Obama is a big Nader fan.
“Doesn’t sound like Sen. Obama is a big Nader fan.”
Well, he showed some admiration for Nader’s work for the consumers, but, of course, Obama is a political pro and the uncompromising stance of Nader, which effectively prohibits him from influencing real politics, must look to Obama as dangerously naive. Imho this shows in his reaction.
Wish that, instead of trying to run, Nader would remain in private sector and join forces with the Edwards’s on their new venture.
Trippin, do you have a blog? This is my first time reading this blog, and you have been by far the most insightful and reasonable person on here. I don’t think I’ll be back reading Mike Sheehan, but I would read yours, if you have one.
Mike, I thought your initial article wasn’t so bad, but the way you respond to commenters is immature and lowers the quality of the debate. I normally enjoy it when writers respond to commenters, but when you say things like “thanks for playing” rather than providing thoughtful responses to reasonable criticisms, you make things so much less interesting. If I wanted that type of attitude, I could just turn on Bill O’Reilly.
Jay, do me a little favor. Scroll to the top of my blog. Read the title of it. It’s Scholars & Rogues. Not Scholars & Simps, Scholars & Saps, or Scholars & Chickens. If you can’t handle that, if you want to ridiculously call me immature while you share with everyone your schoolgirl crush on someone so maturely named “Trippin,” while neither of you acknowledge the facts I put before you about how Democrats themselves were responsible for Al Gore’s loss in 2000 and not Nader or his voters, then maybe you ought to go back to the safe blog playground with the other kids.
“when you say things like “thanks for playing†rather than providing thoughtful responses to reasonable criticisms, you make things so much less interesting. If I wanted that type of attitude, I could just turn on Bill O’Reilly.”
Well, if self-appointed arbiters of taste and goodness like yourself would actually READ my responses and acknowledge the facts I present rather than pontificate about offhand remarks I make to borderline trolls, you might rethink your judgmentalism.
there are five hundred thousand reasons you can’t blame nader for gore losing the election and they all live in Dc
Someone should remind those people thier votes don’t count for anything and just swell the totals
i mean geez
Mike, the problem with your argument is that Gore lost by a relatively small number of votes. Ralph Nader had considerably more votes than Gore lost by. Yes, a number of Democrats voted for Bush. That does not somehow equate to cleansing Nader voters. By throwing away the vote on a third-party candidate with no chance of winning, the election was effectively handed to Bush. The fact that some registered Democrats crossed party lines, or that some other spoilers existed (as referenced in comment 56) does not somehow absolve Nader voters. It simply means that a number of people deserve blame for the Bush presidency. Among those deserving such blame are a hostile national media, an easily influenced moderate voting bloc, and people who voted for Ralph Nader.
Blame is due to all of those people and organizations. You hold some of the responsibility for the Bush Presidency. Pointing fingers at the other people who hold the same responsibility is the pot calling the kettle black. The responsible, adult action to take in our political culture is to decide which candidate from the two major parties better represents your views, and then cast your vote for them. Is it unfortunate that we only have two options with a limited degree of difference between them? Of course it is. I’d love for us to live in a true multi-party system. Recognizing that we don’t, making peace with that, and learning to work within it to make a difference is part of reaching intellectual adulthood.
“I’’d love for us to live in a true multi-party system. Recognizing that we don’t, making peace with that, and learning to work within it to make a difference is part of reaching intellectual adulthood.”
No, it’s part of reaching the rock bottom of intellectual abdication. You want Americans to give in to the status quo. Did you lecture voters who chose Perot in ’92 with this same insulting nonsense? I highly doubt it.