Ralph Nader Might Announce Run For President

SonicSpike writes "According to the AP, Ralph Nader could be poised for another presidential campaign. Nader will appear on NBC's 'Meet the Press' tomorrow to announce whether he will launch another White House bid. Nader kicked off his 2004 presidential run on the show. Kevin Zeese, who was Nader's spokesman during the 2004 presidential race said, 'Obviously, I don't think Meet the Press host Tim Russert would have him on for no reason.'"

Comments

Why?

[squiggleslash]

Is it too likely that a Democrat might win this time?

Hey, remember when he stood in 2000, with the full support of the Green movement, because, wait for it, Al Gore wasn't an environmentalist?

I voted for Ron Paul - don't blame me!

[SonicSpike]

Yup - don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul. :-)

Re:How many times?

[notnAP]

Agreed, especially considering his allure is strongest on the far left and the independent democrats. If Obama wins the nomination, I'd think - and, I have to admit, hope - that Obama would not lose many votes, considering his allure is so strong among those same voters. Hillary as well would probably not lose many votes.
I think it's a damned shame our political system does mean a vote for Nader is effectively a vote for the Republican party. I also think it's a shame Nader's got to run for president just to further his causes. Having survived a head on car collision earlier in my life, I have to wonder if I'd still be alive if it weren't for his efforts. I don't tend to think the automotive industry would have up and improved themselves on their own. That said, I'd really rather not see the democratic vote split again.

Re:I can't be the only

[Kjella]

No, but you might be the only European to visit the US politics section (see that semitransparent US flag under the banner? If no other part on slashdot is US-centric, this one is) and not google or check wikipedia. But to karma whore a little:

Ralph Nader (born February 27, 1934) is an American attorney, author, lecturer and political activist in the areas of consumer rights, humanitarianism, environmentalism and democratic government. He helped found many governmental and non-governmental organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Public Citizen, and several Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), including NYPIRG. Nader has been a staunch critic of corporations, which he believes wield too much power and are undermining the fundamental American values of democracy and human rights.

Nader has run for President four times (in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004), and is currently considering running in 2008.[1] In 1992 he ran as a write-in in both the New Hampshire Republican and Democratic primaries, and other primaries. In 1996 and 2000, he was the nominee of the Green Party; in 2004, he ran as an independent, but was also endorsed by the Reform Party.[1] His campaigns have been controversial, with his role in the 2000 election in particular being subject to much analysis and debate.[2]

He appeared on the cover of Time magazine in 1969 for his role as a consumer advocate.[3]

Should we just call it now?

[TheQuantumShift]

I would love to see less of the two party system, but lets face it, Nader running an extended campaign will only take votes from Obama and give McCain the edge. (at least this time it's not Bush)

Someday I hope we can get beyond the "I belong to this party" mentality. To me there should only be one party, American Citizens. Candidates step up and state what they actually believe and what direction they want to take the government, and are judged by the voting public on those merits alone. Hell, we can even do it American Idol style and text our votes each week.

Though I have noticed in the last few years the lines between the parties blurring quite a bit (excepting the childish displays during the State of the Union). I wonder if we could find someone who's never been exposed to any of the contenders and see if they can guess the party affiliation and what they stand for.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[jjohnson]

To me there should only be one party, American Citizens

All this would accomplish is to make the U.S. like the Soviet Union with its one-party system. The end result is informal parties called factions. You'd just be moving the factional politics inside the party itself. What the U.S. needs is a parliamentary system with the possibility of coalition governments so that candidates aren't forced into one of two molds.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[LithiumX]

Coalition governments seem to have a nasty tendency to break those coalitions, because they're not truly one government. They're parties agreeing to cooperate, under current circumstances, in a power sharing deal. I have long considered this to be one of the most delicate forms of democracy, only suitable for a fledgling government trying to find a final form.

For all the bickering, our two party system is effectively one government, but polarized largely along two artificial poles. What those poles are changes over time, but it's a constant adversarial system. It does not work very effectively, but it seems to do far better than most of what we see in the world.

Consider that we have (if I am right), the longest running continual government - only broken once, partially, by a civil war. That civil war managed to crystalize a new format that, for all of it's faults, was more manageable over the long term than the previous form, and managed to effectively stay the same model of government (but with the balance of power shifted in ways that not everyone likes). Even the UK, while still the same nation, has changed drastically in waves, and each new government that comes in is virtually a new government, whereas ours is designed - imperfectly - to make the transition of power between parties relatively mild and - in the end - of little relevance except to policy.

I'd agree with Washington that static parties are a generally bad idea. It promotes partisanship, and that partisanship is preventing us from having the government we could have. It is, however, far superior to a parliamentary system - a system that rarely seems to function as well as our own inefficiently adversarial model.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[mr_matticus]

We've already got that. We don't have a two-party system. We've got a 100-party system. California Democrats and Wyoming Democrats couldn't even ideologically be considered part of the same party, to say nothing of New York Republicans and Alabama Republicans. The factional politics ARE inside the party itself. There is no "national" party since we don't elect national candidates, with the exception of presidents and vice presidents. The national leadership is the faction within the party that can wield the hammer best at a given time. Parties for Congress are run at the state level. Once they all get to Washington, they figure something out as a pool of a couple hundred individuals.

Are you saying that Ronald Reagan is a Republican in the mold crafted by the current leadership? Is Ron Paul? Hell, is John McCain? Is Eisenhower?

Is Harry Reid the same kind of Democrat as Nancy Pelosi? As FDR? As Wilson?

Each party has a fully realized set of factions, but only one gets to lead at any given time. There's no problem with the "number of parties" in the United States. There's a strong party line dictated by the leadership, and whips keep Reps and Senators on short leashes. All that needs to happen is for the caucuses within the parties to start banding together and voting on the issues, but there's always going to be someone in charge, and that means they've got the loudest voice. The basic problem is that the voters are too lazy to elect people based on their values and ideals. Getting rid of the neocons and Jesus people would be easy if the people wanted it.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[Jafafa Hots]

The founding fathers thought a revolution every now and then was a GOOD thing. You seem not to like multiple parties out of some kind of distaste for the mess. Democracy is messy. There are different needs and wants and power structures and powerless constituencies out there, all constantly vying for a piece of the pie or all of it. There NEEDS to be give and take.

You talk about ONE government that lasts hundreds of years, finds a "final form" (is inflexible, doesn't adapt to newer times).

I can see how such a government would be desirable - to those governing. But how is that a good thing for the people?

Re:Should we just call it now?

[mr_matticus]

The problem is that the U.S. system winnows it down to one person representing all those factions. Every system winnows it down to one person.

The virtue of a parliamentary system is that factions retain their relative power after the election, and a continual process of compromising with them is required. Well, for starters, you're conflating parliamentary and proportional systems, and even allowing that for the moment, a "continual process of compromise" isn't necessary in majority governments, and coalition governments of more than two parties rarely last more than six months, if that.

The US system requires compromise, too. Reps are technically free to vote as they like. There are frequent bipartisan votes, and winning any major issue often requires at least a few members of the other party, particularly if the president is opposed. If enough of the party base disagrees with the leadership, not much will get done in the US system. The reality of course is that you satisfy your caucuses by compromise in general, whether it's within your party or across to your coalition partner.

The visible result of this dilemma is that Christian Coalition now gets zero representation in their president. They had their chance, and they lost. They were represented by their participation. We could certainly go STV for primaries, but the virtue of SMDP is that it's simple, decisive, and effective. At some point, the voters of unpopular candidates are going to wind up voting for someone else. The number of satisfied voters works out to be the same, though a different system would sometimes elect a different candidate.

As the Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly since Reagan with respect to the Christian Coalition, that threat carries very little weight. Because it's an empty threat. If the people had actually ever summoned the strength to spend the five minutes carrying it out, it would be taken more seriously.

then those factions would be overrepresented. The winners are overrepresented in every system. Take a government coalition of 55% in a parliamentary and proportional system: that 55% runs the show. The other 45% have zero input. In our system, the minority can still make plays and win sometimes.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[Xtravar]

One of my favorite quotes - Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith Paris, Nov. 13, 1787:

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race?

[DarkFencer]

This could get VERY interesting (as if it hasn't been already) if both Nader and Bloomberg both run as separate 3rd parties. Since both are liberals it might divide up the Democrat vote enough to give a win to McCain (who is also a liberal).

Towing the party line on 90% instead of 100% of issues does not make one a liberal.

What next?

[The One and Only]

Is Ross Perot going to run again too? I miss that guy.

Re:How many times?

[Rei]

And we all know that Nader is going to run another, "Both parties are the same even though they vote the opposite" campaign.

Perhaps he and his supporters expect *every* Democrat to vote the same on *every* issue? Because that's usually what his campaign speeches come down to. Never mind that the vast majority of Democrats, on a given issue, side with him, and that compromises are almost always made only due to pressure from Republicans. No, because all don't fall in lockstep with his views, both parties are clearly the same.

If Clinton wins the D. nom, he should.

[Draconix]

If Obama gets it, Nader probably won't get much support anyway, but if Clinton gets it, he'll probably get enough support to hurt the DNP in the general election, and frankly, the DNP needs a massive smack upside the head. They need to learn to stop fielding candidates the people can't get behind. Gore was too robotic, Kerry was too wishywashy, and Clinton is too ambitious and unscrupulous. Maybe, just maybe, if Clinton runs and Nader "steals her votes" the party might just get a frigging clue.

Re:If Clinton wins the D. nom, he should.

[Apiakun]

I understand your sentiment here, but I think that instead of stepping up and realizing that it's their own fault, they'll just happily blame Nader instead. It's always easier to blame someone else than to modify one's behaviour.

Nader should be on Slashdot

[Tiger4]

He has an Iconoclastic view of the world,
He pulls obscure facts out of nowhere to make trivial debating points,
He thinks ThePowerStructure is out to ruin everything,
He knows how everyone else should run their lives,
And he's a total Karma Whore.

perot unlikely to run

[DietFluffy]

Is Ross Perot going to run again too? I miss that guy.

less likely after realizing last month that obama is not a muslim: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Perot_pleasantly_surprised.html

Ralph Nader is getting nominated by the Greens

[Kligat]

whether he likes it or not. He won in California, the state with the most delegates, by 60%. They have over 100 while all other states have 4 to 16. In states where he can't be on the ballot in the Green primaries, they have someone from the Draft Nader committee, who will presumably tell his delegates to all vote for Nader. What happens if he wins, but doesn't run? He essentially gets to single-handedly pick the Green nominee. In second place is Cynthia McKinney, a former Democrat member of the House of Representative and the Green running with the most political experience, but nearly all media attention she's received is for striking a security guard with her first after being caught running through the halls without the badge identifying her as a Congresswoman, and also saying "Al Gore's Negro tolerance level isn't very high. He only has one Negro around him at maximum at all times." As someone earlier mentioned, the Green Party weirdly doesn't seem fond of Al Gore. In third place is Kat Swift, whose main political experience is being co-chair of the Texas Green Party and coming in 2nd place for city council. Get this---while running for president, she's also running for city council! Just because it's a third party, doesn't mean it's better than the two in power. The Green Party seems to be the only third party tracking how many delegates each candidate has, but I saw while researching third parties that in Minnesota, all Constitution Party candidates available in their caucuses were Republicans or Democrats, minus one guy I'd never heard of with 2.5% of the vote, and Ron Paul won with over 80%, despite saying he would not run on a third party ticket. The Constitution Party, from their website, looks like the Republican Party without support for the Iraq War or warrantless wiretapping or anti-drug laws, but they mention Jesus in the preamble of their platform. It's pitiful that 2 out of 3 of the third parties the media ever talks about seem to be in favor of people that are not running. Also, I'm new here, so be nice.

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race? No.

[tverbeek]

Bloomberg's not getting into this race. Unlike Nader, who's motivated by a kind of principled idealism that places the outcome as a secondary consideration, Bloomberg's interest in running for president is calculated, to win. If the GOP were nominating a religious fanatic, he'd be able to draw enough secular conservatives to do well, but with McCain getting the GOP nomination, the constituency just isn't there for him. So he'll sit it out.

Listen Carefully,,,

[cacepi]

That's the sound of John McCain's campaign staff high-fiving each other.

In other news, Lyndon LaRouche launched a lawsuit against Ralph Nader in federal court today, claiming that a 2008 Nader presidential campaign infringes on his trademark to "crackpot candidate."

"I'M the nutjob who always runs for President, no that tree-hugger!" rages LaRouche in a strong-worded press released issued earlier today. "The American public looks to ME as their butt of wisecracks and snide remarks come election time, and I'll be damned if some Ralphie-come-lately takes that away. I ruined Ross Perot; I'll ruin him, too!"

A Nader spokesperson refused to comment on the lawsuit except to say that the 'Unsafe at any Speed' plans to summon George Wallace from the grave as an expert witness should LaRouche's petition go to trial.

Who is Ralph Nader?

[orangepeel]

Before he ran for president the first time, all I really knew about Ralph Nader was that he appeared on Sesame Street once long ago.

During his run for president (both in 2000 and 2004), I learned a little more about him here on Slashdot. 90% of what I read here was negative.

I was deceived -- the reality was that 90% of the comments I read here on Slashdot were just gross oversimplifications and instances of senseless finger-pointing.

What changed my point of view? Just one thing: an Independent Lens documentary, "An Unreasonable Man".

After watching that documentary, I still don't know if Ralph Nader would have made (or would make) a good president. Instead, what I do know is that I'm sorry I took most of the Slashdot comments back in 2000 and 2004 as a good source of information. Ralph Nader has been unfairly dragged through the mud by many, and by some has been blamed for everything they care to believe went wrong with American leadership over the last 8 years. From some of the comments I'm reading here, it seems there's still a lot of unfair hostility aimed at him.

If you have the opportunity to watch that documentary, do so. It might create a more complete picture of the man for you, as it did for me.

The man who put Bush in the White House

[Animats]

This is the man who put George Bush in the White House, by getting a small number of votes in the closest Presidential election in American history. Nader needs to give it up.

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[ryanov]

Really? Let's take a step back for a moment -- why was this the closest Presidential election in American history? Gore's shit campaign? Republican meddling? Ralph Nader's margin NEVER should have mattered in an election where a man with a fairly distinguished record was running against an apish former cokehead. You can't blame that on Nader.

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[rpillala]

No one but Gore is to blame for Gore not being able to get enough votes.

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[Jeff DeMaagd]

No one but Gore is to blame for Gore not being able to get enough votes.

I'd say that's probably the truth. If he could have carried his own state, he would have won.

Re:Nader's Ego in 2008

[maxume]

This seems to be a rather popular position. It embodies a rather dim view of Nader-nee-Dem supporters, unable to foresee Nader's inability to win, yanking the lever for their man, ignorant of the consequences. I don't think so. Your average voting, bipedal primate is wickedly good at applied game theory and certainly able to understand the two party situation endemic to presidential elections in the U.S.A., and the consequences of a third party vote.

I could get behind "Occasionally, a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.", but anything more than that is overstating the case, as the joker voting for Nader knows damn well what he is doing, so you can't really assume that they would have voted democratic without Nader in the picture.

Stated another way: If people who voted for Nader were interested in making sure McCain did not win, they would vote for the Democratic party candidate, rather than Nader. That they vote for Nader indicates that they could give a flip about the choice between the major candidates, so it is a bit of a stretch to assign them either way.

A vote for Nader is...a vote for Nader(and all that stands for), unless you think the person voting is a blithering moron.

I've never voted for Nader, and I've voted both Democratic and Republican in presidential elections, so let's not make this about me.

Who doesn't have a clue?

[xealot]

A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. People like you are the reason why America is locked into a two party system, with only the choice between the lesser of two evils. I voted for Nader in 2000, and if he wasn't on the ballot I still wouldn't have voted for Gore, or Bush for that matter. My vote for Nader was not a vote for Bush, and I doubt many of the other were either. I have no trouble believing that there are 5% of voters in America who feel the same and would never vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate because it's obvious that they are both in the pockets of lobbyists.

I'm sorry, but as a geek I'm only going to vote for someone with an ounce of intelligence and common sense, not the one who needs the votes to beat the greater of two evils. Nothing is ever going to change unless the greater population of the US realizes that professional politicians, regardless of party, are all the same. If you don't vote for who you actually want to win what is the point of living in a democracy, why not move to China?

Re:Who doesn't have a clue?

[Kjella]

A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. People like you are the reason why America is locked into a two party system, with only the choice between the lesser of two evils. Sorry, but it's really not his fault that the analysis is correct. Let's say you have a 60/40 spilt in Congress. Now, for some infinitesimal reason the 60% party splits right down the middle to two 30% parties. The voters haven't moved one bit, but they've lost all power to the 40% making up the minority. I mean seriously, it's like 30% want a slightly darker blue and 30% a slightly lighter blue, so let's go with the 40% that wants red. WTF? The US is recognized as a representative democracy, but that's the closest I've ever seen to an unrepresentative democracy (yes, I made that up). Either you have to try to change things within the big two parties or the only thing you'll achieve is to weaken everyone you partially agree with. A third party is an inherently unstable situation in the US system because they get far less power as two parties than as one, even though they have the same popular support. It's the system that'd have to change but you can be damned that it'll take a revolution to do since all those benefitting from it are those sitting in Congress.

Re:But I want RoooOoon

[tomhudson]

The storm has barely even started.

That's for sure. Already, 10.3% of all homes are "under water" on their mortgages. Its expected that between 30% and 50% will end up tht way before we get to the bottom of the trough. The US could be in for a Japan-style meltdown, with at least a decade lost.

This will sideswipe the worlds' economy.

Already, there's a question of whether several German state banks, who hold billions in US toxic mortgage paper, will be forced into bankruptcy.

That's what happens in a global economy where lying ratings agencies give triple-a ratings to junk in return for fees.

Re:How many times?

[Valdrax]

Never mind that the vast majority of Democrats, on a given issue, side with him, and that compromises are almost always made only due to pressure from Republicans. No, because all don't fall in lockstep with his views, both parties are clearly the same. Oh, and in the meantime, his stubborn lack of willingness to consider Democrats as different from Republicans has cost the county eight years of leadership opposed to every single thing he stands for. I think I'll go absolutely off the deep end insane if he manages to lose us a swing state and cost the election in 2008 like he did in 2000. Like crawling up the walls, growing a beard and braiding it, and mailing pipe-bombs filed with candy corn insane.

Re:He is

[Original Replica]

Nader has done more good for this country than Gore (or most others in politics.)

But in securing Dubya's win he did enough harm to over shadow all the good he has done. It's a safe assumption that if Nader had not run, that the vast majority of those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, and Gore would have won Florida and the election. Sure 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan may well still have happened, but the Iraq war and the abuse of signing statements and Gitmo and the DHS and the Patriot Act 1&2 and wiretapping would not have happened under Gore. Nader has done a lot of good, but also a lot of damage, he should get back to doing good instead of following his ego and "paving the road with good intentions."

Gore is for carbon credits

[sethawoolley]

Which essentially means he wants to create a trading scheme on top of carbon, and the only way they can have value is that somebody would trade their right to call a generation mechanism carbon-free, so that carbon-consumption is something they are ok with -- they are ok selling it out.

So, you see, Gore isn't an environmentalist. He's a capitalist that wants to make money off of guilt -- guilt is the only way in which carbon credits have any meaning without real limits on carbon output (which don't exist). Moreover, carbon credits are fundamentally unfair. The rich get to buy their way out of carbon guilt!

Gore's a politician -- a salesman. He's sold the public, with his movie, carbon credits. After all of his speeches, he tells people they can all be carbon neutral if they just buy his promoted carbon credits!

I'm sorry, but the Greens were right to criticize him. He's just at the same old political lying.

Re:I can't be the only

[Russ Nelson]

--
The difficulty of libertarianism is not "I must be free"; but "That other jerk must be free as well." Ha! Ain't that the truth!

Re:How many times?

[Valdrax]

Would you feel the same if he had won? No. I would've been quite happy if he'd won. Both he and Gore reflected most of my values. If we lived in a country with approval voting or IRV, I would've voted for the both of them. I actually almost *did* vote for Nader since I lived in a red state that was going to Bush anyway, but I thought that there *might* be a chance for Gore to pull the state.

He didn't cost the election. He provided an alternative to the Party. You speak like those are mutually opposed. The mathematics of the electoral college combined with the winner-take-all voting in most US states is the reason why a 3rd party candidate has *never* won the election. The only person to come in 2nd was Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party which split the Republican base and put Woodrow Wilson into office. Thurmond and Wallace almost cost Truman reelection, Ross Perot cost Bush the election to Clinton, and Nader gave New Hampshire and Florida to Bush.

Nader cost Gore the election by taking away a larger margin of liberal voters than Bush won each of those states by. If either state had gone to Gore, we wouldn't have had this bunch of yahoos in office when the planes took off on September 11th, and this country might still be respected in the world. At the very least a consumer advocate like Nader wouldn't have managed to let Bush put foxes in all the henhouses in Washington, thus directly curbstomping the very cause that made him famous.

Besides, I can guarantee you that Lieberman is every bit as evil as Cheney. THAT'S what cost the democrats the election. Oh, Lieberman's a political opportunist and quite a bit of an old-school neocon (as in the pre-Reagan sense), but there are some huge degrees of difference there, and I can't imagine him wielding anything like the unprecedented power and influence that Cheney has as vice president, which has largely been a ceremonial role in the past.

Also, I'd like to see you back up the "Lieberman cost the election" theory. The numbers on Nader's influence in NH & FL are easy to find, but I'd like to see some numbers on Lieberman. I can't imagine that that many people were terribly influenced by him.

Re:He is

[HappyEngineer]

But 99% of of you prefer to stick with the status quo.

No, 99% of us don't know how to get rid of the status quo. The system is strongly stacked against 3rd parties. There are 2 ways to make a 3rd party win. One is to put an immensely popular person in a third party. But, that's not going to happen because such a popular person would probably be able to be the candidate for one of the 2 main parties.

The other way is to get constitutional reforms passed which change how elections work. Good luck getting that to happen. That would require the help of at least one of the two existing parties and I don't see that happening.

So, the only purpose of a 3rd party is to draw votes from another party. Deciding to run in a 3rd party does not mean you're presenting a 3rd choice. It means that you're attempting to draw votes from the major party that agrees with you the most.

I don't like it. I very much wish we could alter the system to allow people to vote with some sort of multi-vote system as in I like person #1 but if they don't win then I prefer person #2. There are a variety of other voting schemes, any one of which would probably be better.

But, there is only one possible outcome of another Nader run. That is to draw votes away from Obama. If Nader runs and McCain wins then Nader bears the blame just like he bears the blame for getting Bush elected.

The only real possibility that I see for change is to push to get the primaries opened up more. That is where we have real choice. The primaries are corrupt in many ways. There are plenty of very undemocratic issues in the primaries for both major parties. That needs to change and it's the only way that change can occur.

Before you take the scapegoating too far...

[greenguy]

... let me point out several things you appear to have overlooked.

1. Gore won. There is no question that Gore won the popular vote. It was our outdated (and I question whether it was ever in date) Electoral College for the highly improbably but all-too-real situation where the candidate who came in second might actually win.

2. Gore won. The Supreme Court cut off recounts at a very convenient time for the son of the man who put several of them there. So much for the balance of powers.

3. Voter disefranchisement. African Americans were presented with many obstacles to voting, as has been well-documented in Florida in 2000, and in Ohio in 2004. As much as I'd personally like to think they were there to vote for Nader, the fact is, they overwhelmingly supported Gore (Kerry). And I'll just mention the difficulties people had with the ballots in passing. All these are, of course, merely emblematic of systemic problems in all 50 states, plus our assorted territories.

4. Gore lost Florida fair and square.
4a. There were a string of other third parties on the ballot, mostly on the left, who presumably "took votes from Gore." Can you name them? Did you know they added up to more than 534 votes?
4b. Vastly more registered Democrats voted for Bush than total people voted for Nader. Reread that sentence as many times as it takes.
4c. There is no -- I want to make this very clear -- no reason to presume had Nader not been on the ballot in 2000, his would-be voters would hae automatically gone to Gore. That's sheer arrogance. A handful would have, yes, but a lot would have gone to other leftist parties, a number would have gone Libertarian, and an awful lot would have abstained. Notice: please do not respond merely to the word "handful" outside the larger context of this message. Thank you.

5. Gore lost Tennessee and Arkansas. His own home state. Clinton's home state. 'Nuff said.

Not so fast my friend.

[OakLEE]

...but the Iraq war and the abuse of signing statements and Gitmo and the DHS and the Patriot Act 1&2 and wiretapping would not have happened under Gore.

Yah just like the DMCA, Defense of Marriage Act, Telecom Reform Act, and Communications Decency Act (Source) would never have been enacted had Bob Dole or Bush I been President?

It's too easy to speculate now since hindsight is 20/20, but remember that the majority of the PATRIOT Act power grab provisions were enacted on recommendation of the Justice Department, and had been provisions which the DOJ had been trying to get enacted for years.

Let us also not forget that the Clinton Administration signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act, which established "regime change" in Iraq as the official US position, and pretty much gave George W. Bush the legitimacy he needed to start a serious dialog on invading. In fact, that law was enacted to provide cover for the Clinton Administration to engage in Operation Desert Fox in Iraq (a very popular move a the time).

The point of the story here is not so much to lay blame on any particular person here, but remind everybody that politicians whose horizons really only stretch as far as the next election will do really stupid things if they think it can score them some brownie points with their constituents.

Re:How many times?

[illegalcortex]

Let's say I drive recklessly and wind up with my car precariously perched on the edge of a bridge, front two wheels off and the car seesawing a bit. It's 100% my fault and I shouldn't try to avoid the blame. But then this guy comes along and nudges the bumper, sending my car over the edge and into the river. It's still ultimately my fault, but that guy - that guy is a total dick.

Re:How many times?

[sumdumass]

Why must hate come into it? I mean hate is the reason the world is as bad as it is in the first place. One person's self-righteousness in the application of hate doesn't ad legitimacy to it. I'm sure the 9/11 hijackers thought their hate was legitimate too.

Find another way to vent your anger and frustration before it becomes hate. Otherwise, you are the reason the world "hates" us. Because hate breads hate. It is a cluster fuckfest that doesn't deserve the light of day. Do you know why Iraq invaded Kuwait which has in many ways shaped our most recent history including causing 9/11? It is because a Kuwaiti ambassador told Iraq that he thought of Iraqi women as 10 dollar whores. Saddam said during his interrogations that this made him hate Kuwait so much that he had to find a way to invade them and make them pay. The entire slant drilling which was the "offense" or justification at the time was only a cover for Saddam's hate. Many bad things in recent history can be traced back to that. Both Iraq wars, the positioning of our troops in the middle east which was a chief complaint of Bin Ladin who hated us because of that which spured 9/11 and a few other act around the world. The war in Afghanistan, our perception in the world and many more things that you would see as bad. All because of hate.

Walk away, search deep inside yourself and find a way to overcome your hate. You don't have to like them, you don't have to love them, you don't even have to care for them, just don't hate them.