Nader admits he took more votes from Democrats than Republicans in 2000

[jackson]

I saw this on a Texas blog by someone who had attended a meeting on Wednesday with Ralph Nader in Austin:

"Ralph Nader said it himself. He said that exit polls showed that 38% of his voters would have voted for Gore, 25% for Bush and the rest wouldn't have voted. He used it to justify that many of his voters would not have voted and that he took votes from Bush as well. Very well, but had 38% of Nader voters voted for Gore in Florida (and 25% voted for Bush, and the rest not vote), Gore would have won Florida by about 13,000 votes and we wouldn't be talking about recounts. I'll never be able to forgive Ralph Nader for that. Never."

So you have it direct from Nader. In his announcement on Sunday, Nader said he didn't cost Gore the election. Then, the stats he uses in one of his talks a mere three days later proves otherwise. I liked Nader at one time, but he has turned into just another egotistical, hypocritical, contradictory politician.

[bluestateguy]

1. Actually I think the number was 47%

47% of Nader voters would have voted for Gore, and I'm pretty sure it was 21% who would have voted for Bush (I knew one of these people personally), and 30% who would have picked up their marbles and stayed home.

[Rowdyboy]

2. Yours were the numbers I heard

[wreckz]

3. I WON'T be voting for Nader again!

Four years ago I was a staunch Nader supporter. I even attended 3 Nader rallies in California and sported a Nader bumper sticker on my car. At the time, I saw very little difference between Gore and Bush. I am sure as hell no fan of the two party duopoly either. Gore and Bush both came off like mushy corporate centrists that are simply part of the elitist status quo. Well, at least Bush campaigned as a "centrist". So I saw no real harm in him being elected compared to Al Gore.


In many ways Gore defeated Gore. He couldn't even carry his own home state of Tennessee! In his debates against Bradley and Bush, Gore came off as really arrogant and condescending. Bush on the other hand, came off as some humble folksy guy from the backwoods of Texas who could relate to the average Joe.

In addition, Bush said he was NOT a "nation builder", yet he made a pre-emptive strike on Iraq that so far has cost in excess of $102,000,000,000 and 548 American Lives.

Bush also said he would not touch Roe V Wade unless he could get a good majority of the country to agree with him. Yet, John Ashcroft is now hounding some abortion clinics to turn over some confidential patient records. Just imagine if Bush gets to pick some Supreme Court justices!

Finally, Bush said he was "An uniter, not a divider" and he could "work" with both Democrats and Republicans. However, Valerie Plame , a CIA agent was outed as payback to her husband ambassador Joseph Wilson. That's because Wilson dared to disagree with fabricated "intelligence reports" alleging Niger was attempting to sell uranium to Iraq. So, it is painfully clear that Bush is a divider, not an uniter. Except in the case of uniting much of the country and the world against him!

So after taking my chances with Bush, and now seeing his true colors, I will stand firmly behind the Democrat nominee. That person will likely be an inside the Beltway senator with their share of baggage and flaws. As usual, it will be a choice between the lesser of two evils. However, in this particular presidential election, we are literally talking a contest of evil-lite vs. industrial strength evil!


If Ralph Nader must run, I hope he does so strictly to convey a message about the corporatacracy that has hijacked our country, and takes many parting shots at Bush in the process. But in the very end, I hope he urges whatever "supporters" he may have, not to vote for him, especially in any swing states like Florida or Ohio, for example.


Should Nader once again suck away enough votes from the Democrat candidate , thus allowing Bush to be re-elected, then his progressive legacy will be forever tarnished! He will be remembered more for how he ends his career, versus his past glory that made him so appealing to progressives in the first place. Now if Nader is really just in this for the campaign money, then fine. I will gladly give him a donation NOT to run!

[neoteric lefty]

4. no offense

but Gore cost himself the election (as well as the US Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, the company that developed Florida's "craptacular" felony-list, and Pat Buchanan :) ). I am sorry, but Gore decided to give up on Ohio a month before the election, where he ended up only 3 points behind Bush. He couldn't win his own state of Tenn. And so on.....

It is too easy to blame Nader when he did absolutely nothing wrong. He was a valid candidate for president. If Gore couldn't keep his base then that was his fault for pandering to the right. I see nothing wrong with letting more viewpoints into the process, as long as they are nominees of established political parties. I didn't vote for Nader in 2000 and I won't vote for Nader this time but I agree with a lot of what he is saying and I hope he can raise awareness to issues that I find important in the general election, like stopping corporate power and greed.