I prefer to think of him as a tool of the GOP. He did so much to help them get into office the previous two times, so why shouldn't they ask him to do it again this time?
What I don't know is whether he is willingly a tool of the GOP.
As a friend reminded me in another blog, Bush took Florida by 800 votes...Ralph gained 20,000 votes from Florida that year.
But more importantly is this: Ralph Nader is not running for president, not then and not now, because he honestly thinks he can become president or because he wants to provide the people of America with a choice. If he was interested in any of those things, he would have been doing a whole lot more between 2000 and now. He hasn't done diddly-squat. Ralph Nader is doing nothing but interfering in the process for his own vanity.
There were so many things wrong with the 2000 election in Florida and Ohio that blaming Nader for Gore's loss is far too simplistic. I myself blamed Nader for Gore's loss for years. But if the race is so close that the winner is determined by hundreds of votes, then either the losing candidate didn't run as good a race as he should have or the vote was fixed. It's a lot easier to blame Nader for Gore's loss than to blame Gore for running a lacking campaign or the GOP for rigging the election - because that could never happen in the U.S. of A. could it? And don't get me started on Kerry. He got my vote because he wasn't Bush, not because I wanted to see President Kerry.
If you haven't seen the Nader documentary An Unreasonable Man I encourage you to do so. You may still think he's a self-centered prat, but you may not think he's a tool of the GOP.
First off, whether Ralph Nader was, and is now, a "tool" of the GOP.
There is a difference between whether Nader is a tool of the GOP and whether he is a "paid" tool of the GOP. I have no idea whether Nader is actually a paid shill, and personally I don't believe he is. I think he does this for his own egotistical reasons (I'll get into that in a moment).
But there is no question he was, and *is*, a tool of the GOP, and anyone who doesn't think so believes that the GOP is stupid. The GOP is not...they will use *anything* that they believe will be useful against the Democrats. Period. That's the reality of politics. That is why the GOP decided to utilize his campaign against the Democrats by running pro-Nader ads in some states during the 2000 election.
Would Gore have won if Nader had not run? There is no question. Is it fair to penalize him for that? That is the real question. I do not actually penalize Nader myself for the 2000 election, because I honestly believe that Bush cheated on the 2000 election in so many different ways, that even if Gore had run a stronger campaign (and he did not run as strong a campaign as he could have, I agree), I think that Bush would have stolen it from him. However, I honestly believe that Nader really thought he was providing a choice at that time to people, or at least showing everyone the faults of the two-party system.
Now, as in 2004 (when he also ran) Nader is running a vanity campaign. He has done nothing, absolutely nothing, in almost a decade of any real value. His 2004 run and his run now is nothing more than "I'm still here, watch me". And that is not a good enough reason to run for president, or divide the people's attention and votes.
I doubt he'll have much impact unless superdelegates put Clinton in over a strong Obama showing by the public. Most of the fringe Obama voters already feel they're voting alternative -- there are a stunning number of Conservatives and Libertarians and undecided and protest voters stumping for Obama.
But yeah, he's a self-centered prat. I could *sort of* see an argument that he had to go all the way to throwing the election last time in order to make a point about the two-party system. But the most likely outcome this time is that he dilutes any message he may have accomplished last time.
It almost strikes of a desperation move by the GOP, and damned straight they're desperate. If Obama gets the nomination, expect them to pull every dirty trick in the book.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
What I don't know is whether he is willingly a tool of the GOP.
But yes, he is indeed a self-centered prat.
no subject
no subject
But more importantly is this: Ralph Nader is not running for president, not then and not now, because he honestly thinks he can become president or because he wants to provide the people of America with a choice. If he was interested in any of those things, he would have been doing a whole lot more between 2000 and now. He hasn't done diddly-squat. Ralph Nader is doing nothing but interfering in the process for his own vanity.
no subject
Instead, you get over my needing to get over it. I am so tired of that turn of phrase. It's so arrogant and elitist of you.
no subject
If you haven't seen the Nader documentary An Unreasonable Man I encourage you to do so. You may still think he's a self-centered prat, but you may not think he's a tool of the GOP.
Okay, I'll weigh in here...
There is a difference between whether Nader is a tool of the GOP and whether he is a "paid" tool of the GOP. I have no idea whether Nader is actually a paid shill, and personally I don't believe he is. I think he does this for his own egotistical reasons (I'll get into that in a moment).
But there is no question he was, and *is*, a tool of the GOP, and anyone who doesn't think so believes that the GOP is stupid. The GOP is not...they will use *anything* that they believe will be useful against the Democrats. Period. That's the reality of politics. That is why the GOP decided to utilize his campaign against the Democrats by running pro-Nader ads in some states during the 2000 election.
Would Gore have won if Nader had not run? There is no question. Is it fair to penalize him for that? That is the real question. I do not actually penalize Nader myself for the 2000 election, because I honestly believe that Bush cheated on the 2000 election in so many different ways, that even if Gore had run a stronger campaign (and he did not run as strong a campaign as he could have, I agree), I think that Bush would have stolen it from him. However, I honestly believe that Nader really thought he was providing a choice at that time to people, or at least showing everyone the faults of the two-party system.
Now, as in 2004 (when he also ran) Nader is running a vanity campaign. He has done nothing, absolutely nothing, in almost a decade of any real value. His 2004 run and his run now is nothing more than "I'm still here, watch me". And that is not a good enough reason to run for president, or divide the people's attention and votes.
And that's why I call him a prat.
no subject
no subject
But yeah, he's a self-centered prat. I could *sort of* see an argument that he had to go all the way to throwing the election last time in order to make a point about the two-party system. But the most likely outcome this time is that he dilutes any message he may have accomplished last time.
no subject