Nader Voters - Has Your Opinion of Gore Changed?

[Zandor]

Question for Nader supporters of 2000 - has your opinion of Al Gore changed in the seven years since? And would you vote for Nader again?

[Crunchy Frog]

1. Yes, my opinion has changed, no I won't vote for Nader again.

Today's Al Gore is very different from the one who picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate.

If he got into the race, I would support him.

[bluestateguy]

2. Voter, Vote Wasted

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Who'd you vote for in 2000?

Tee hee.

[Zandor]

4. Gore. You? n/t

[GOTV]

5. I don't know if I'm a Nader supporter but I did vote for him in 2000....

I probably would not have voted for him if he had a shot. I voted for him mostly because of two reasons:

1 - I don't like having only two feasable options for president, with the exception of Clinton, Clinton & Kerry, I always voted for 3rd party candidates.

2 - I don't like political dynasties. I don't like how VPs often become automatic shoe-in's for the nomination. I wanted to vote against that.

I felt comfortable voting for Nader because I didn't really think Bush could win the vote (and he didn't) and I also did not think Bush would be as bad as he turned out to be.

If it's any consolation, I live in Ohio. In 2000 Bush won Ohio with a margin great enough that all the Nader voters couldn't have flipped Ohio back to Gore. (I wish we had instant run-off voting though)

To answer your question though, if given a chance, I'd vote for Gore in a second now.

[CTyankee]

38. I feel sad for casting my 3rd party vote, not in 2000, but back in the 80s for

John Anderson against Carter and Reagan. It upsets me to think about it now. I feel almost ashamed and stupid. Probably cuz I met John Anderson a few years later and was disappointed in what a miserable a-hole that guy was. I felt betrayed.

[Webster Green]

6. No!

I've always liked Gore, but I voted for Nader in 2000 merely to rock the boat a little. I live in a safe state (CA), so I didn't worry about my vote spoiling it for Al.

I would like to see some sort of instant run-off, or proportional representation system rather than the two-party(?), winner take all deal that we have now. I like the idea of third parties participating, and stirring things up.

:patriot:

[liberalhistorian]

7. Who fucking cares what they think.

If it weren't for them, we wouldn't be in this goddamn mess in the first place. And if that ruffles some poor feathers, tough shit. The fact that he's aligned with the likes of Grover Norquist, and that repubs made substantial contributions to his campaign, should have been enough of a damned clue.

[havocmom]

8. Good points

:thumbsup:

As to poster who said Gore is a different man than he was then The Earth in The Balance spoke volumes as to the sort of man Gore was and is. Came out well before 2000 as I recall. Lame BS excuse for supporting Nader (who we KNEW AT THE TIME was taking GOP $$)

[Greyhound]

10. Who cares what you think. n/t

[liberalhistorian]

14. Whatever. I ain't alone, trust me. It

didn't take a rocket scientist to see what Nader was all about, especially the alliance with Norquist and the repub contributions. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see how dangerous Bush was and would be as president and the disaster that would, and did, unfold, as well as the fact that, while Gore wasn't perfect, he sure as hell would be better than Bush. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that, in our political system, third parties never make it and a third party vote is wasted. And it didn't take a rocket scientist to see that a vote for Nader would hurt the Dems, not the pukes, and would likely help to put that spoiled, pampered, ignorant, arrogant, dangerous, sociopathic frat boy in the WH. So, thanks for nothing.

[Greyhound]

16. I guess you are an authority on not being a "rocket scientist".

Apparently it has escaped your Holmes-like powers of observation that the fix was in and it wouldn't matter one iota whether the voters in FL voted for Nader or not. Do you remember the 3000 votes for Pat Buchanan that were supposedly cast in a heavily Democratic and Jewish district? The Brooks Brothers revolt? The December SCOTUS appointment?

How long a list would you like?

Gore would not be President even if Nader had never existed. This pathetic scapegoating of people that voted their conscience and principles is just so much more distraction from what matters.

[Zandor]

17. Nader votes would have covered the gap many times over n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

18. Too bad the party platform wasn't adjusted accordingly

Who knew "who cares what you think" wouldn't be a winning strategy? :eyes:

[Greyhound]

32. No, it wouldn't. Chose to ignore the facts all you want, by any account Gore won the greatest number

of votes and the SCOTUS enacted a coup.

Nader was irrelevant.

[lateo]

22. Bottom line is this...

the Democrats got themselves into a position where Nader's candidacy hurt them. That is THEIR fault not Nader's. Maybe you should look into the reasons why people voted for Nader instead of Gore. The Democrats should have been able to run a 5-year old on LSD and beat Dimson.

[ProudDad]

25. You might want to

address your misleading screen name...

Your grasp of actual events is seriously warped by your misguided hatred of a true Progressive...

[liberalhistorian]

47. I do not consider someone who's aligned with the likes

of Grover Norquist, and who receives substantial repub contributions, and who has many investment holdings in repub corporations, to be a "true" progressive. If you do, then I guess that's your problem.

[bobbolink]

44. Thanks for making it clear. I'm bookmarking this for your reply.

Whenever I hear some crap about how all the Dems need to vote and get in line, I'm going to point to my list of posts like yours, dismissing Dems you hate.

Tough shit, indeedy.

Just don't come crying later....

[liberalhistorian]

46. Anyone who voted for Nader is not a Dem.

And because of them, we're in this mess today. You'd think that people would have been able to see through Nader given his alliance with Norquist and his substantial repub contributions, but I guess not.

[bobbolink]

49. Hey, go ahead and kick all of us you don't agree with out of the party.

Then you can have a pity party when you don't get the votes necessary.

Afterall, judgementalism goes such a long way towards creating peace.

But, then, it certainly makes the judger feel ever so much more important.

[Greyhound]

9. Yes and no.

I was never a "Naderite", but did vote for him in 2000 for one reason, the fact that Al Gore was so adamantly pro-corporate.

This was Nader's only point and the Gore campaign (deliberately? Hello Ms. "Defender of Democracies" Brazile) refused to acknowledge the obvious problems with what he had advocated for the preceding 15+ years. I lived in CA which was a "safe" state for the Gore/Lieberman campaign, but even so, I never would have believed that the American Sheeple had become so uncritical as to vote for the blatant failure of arbusto_®, so I probably would still have voted for Nader if I lived in another state.

I have stated many times over the last several years that I believe citizen Gore is far superior to what politician Gore ever was.

So, my opinion of Al gore did change once he left politics.
I see nothing to indicate that he would be any better than he was, should he return to the sewer.

[xchrom]

11. yay! -- another nader flame fest!!!

different day same shit.

:boring:

[lateo]

19. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Why people have this irrational hatred of Nader.

[Zandor]

20. A Bush presidency

will do that to you.

[lateo]

21. Not Nader's fault.

You want someone to blame...point a finger at the Democrats.

[Lilith Velkor]

28. Or um...the Republicans?

Naaah...

[lateo]

29. Plenty of blame to go around.

[Greyhound]

33. Don't forget who actually carried out the coup, the SCOTUS. n/t

[liberalhistorian]

35. The hell it isn't partly his fault.

Yes, SCOTUS and repub shenanigans were the major villains. But he had a large role in it as well, as did his REPUBLICAN contributors and his association with Norquist. Those should have been more than enough of a clue. If you can't handle that, too fucking bad.

[lateo]

40. Partly yes.

Completely, no. There is plenty of blame to go around as you mentioned.

[Pastiche423]

42. Displaying your ignorance on a progressive board

is NOT a good thing.

SCOTUS appointed little lord pissypants.

PERIOD!

[ProudDad]

27. Sandra Day O'Conner

the only vote that counted...

Get a life!

[Forkboy]

23. He's our Clenis.

[xchrom]

45. ...

:spank: -- you know you weren't supposed say that out loud!

:rofl:

[rucky]

12. I voted for Gore, but...

I bought into all the negative crap that was said about him, and Gore didn't really do anything to set me straight on it.

Both Dems and Naderites were pretty naive to the level of filth Rove ran in that campaign (and the help of the media to paint Gore as a dud and Nader as viable).

I guess we all know now, though.

[Lilith Velkor]

13. Unapologetic Nader '00 voter here, glad you asked

It seems to me that Gore, unlike most of the party, has learned from his and it's mistakes, and I respect him for that.

I don't think he's going to run, but he could sway a lot of us lefty loonies to support the candidate he endorses, and he probably will.

[Virginia Dare]

34. Thanks for that response Lilith..

it proves that it was a valid quesion, and not necessarily flame bait. I think you could be right about that.

[liberalhistorian]

48. So his alliance with Norquist, and his substantial

repub contributions and his numerous investment holdings in known repub corporations didn't bother you? Ya, sure, whatever.

And Gore didn't make nearly the "mistakes" you attribute to him. A lot of it was corporate media bullshit because many in the "upper" media personally liked Bush.

[TransitJohn]

15. Oh hell yeah it has.

Starting with the fiery speeches denunciating this outrageous administration. I freely admit that my vote wasn't the best....but then again, it's not like Gore would've gotten Wyoming's 3 electoral votes anyway.

[ProudDad]

24. Gore has changed substantially in the last 7 years

so, yes, I'd be willing to listen to his platform at this time...

It was PURE DLC back then, that is, full of shit...but he's grown a LOT...probably more than he would have in office.

[Fading Captain]

26. I never voted for Nader, but I totally respect the man, and I find your question

to be juvenile, in a How ya like them apples kind of way.

Grow up.

[lateo]

30. Exactly.

I voted for Gore too.

[Ron Green]

31. I voted for Nader in 2000, because I honestly thought Gore was

too cozy with corporate players, and I didn't know the extent of his greatness at the time. Part of this was my own fault for not digging deeply enough, and part of it was his poorly-run campaign - I mean, if there was ever more of a hack than Donna Brazile, I've never met him.

I remember that Nader (along with Buchanan and the Libertarian candidate) were frozen out of the "debate" process. It didn't smell good at all.

[spindoctor]

36. Not really

I appreciate Gore's efforts to bring climate change to the world's attention, but it's typical for him that he did this initially without checking his own carbon foot print. It wasn't until critics pointed out that there were a lot of lights burning in the Gore mansion while he traveled across the world by private jet that he started to make some changes. That makes me question his motives.

He's a bit of a doofus and a mediocre politician. He doesn't inspire (me), and he doesn't provide solutions. He seems to have matured some since 2000 but I think he just looks better in his current arena.

I still respect Nader for fighting against corruption in Washington, which I believe is at the root of everything that is wrong with American politics. I hold Nader higher than several Democratic candidates, and I don't exclude the possibility that I will support a third party candidate if I don't like the Democratic nominee. If Gore decides to give it a shot (which I doubt), then he would have to come with a better program this time around than what he presented 7 years ago.

Bottom line, Democrats should not take my vote for granted. I want to see some serious changes and I will always vote my conscience.

[Blue_In_AK]

37. Yes, it has, immensely.

I voted for Nader in 2000 because I live in Alaska where a Democrat wasn't going to win anyway, so I don't feel like I threw away my vote. I wish the Al Gore that ran in 2000 had been the same Al Gore that we all know and love today. Being out of politics set him free.

If he does run for president again (which I wouldn't blame him if he didn't), I hope it's the new and improved Gore that will hit the campaign trail, not that other guy.

[ulysses]

39. yes, and it depends.

If the Gore of today had run in 2000, I would have voted for him and not for Nader.

[Matariki]

41. I voted for Nader in 2000 because I knew Gore was a sure win in my state.

But I wanted to see the Green party get the 5% it needed to get on future ballots. We really need to evolve beyond our current highly polarized two party system. I'd like to see a 4 or 5 party system with proportional representation.

I liked Gore at the time and actually preferred him over Nader. I like him even better now. I think he has grown tremendously as a person in a way that probably wouldn't have happened had he not had the election stolen from him. On the other hand, America and the rest of the world would be in a better place had he been president these past 7 years.

[bobbolink]

43. *GORE* changed.

He's not the same man he was in 2000.

That should be obvious.