NADER on the problem with voting for the lesser of 2 evils

RALPH WILL BE ON THE DAILY SHOW TUSEDAY MARCH 4, 2008, SPREAD THE WORD.join the nader team.contribute, volunteer
http://www.votenader.org/
Published on Friday, February 29, 2008 by The Denver Post
Dems Should Thank Nader, Not Trash Him
by Heath Haussamen
Hillary Clinton blamed Ralph Nader this weekend for Al Gore's 2000 loss to George W. Bush. She's hardly the first to make such a statement, but the comment reveals the patronizing attitudes that still pervade her party.Barack Obama wasn't much nicer, saying Nader "did not know what he was talking about" when he claimed there was no difference between Bush and Gore. But it's Clinton's comments that really got to me: She said categorically that Nader "is responsible for George W. Bush." She's wrong. You know who is "responsible" for Bush being elected? Gore. The Democratic Party. The American public.
I first became aware of Nader as a high-school senior in 1996. I didn't get to vote that year - the election was held about five weeks before I turned 18 - but I would have voted for him.I'll be honest: I was completely ignorant at the time about what Nader believed. I was part of a group of people in my class at St. Michael's High School in Santa Fe who, when we were assigned to participate in a mock presidential election, decided Bill Clinton and Bob Dole were unacceptable choices and began looking for another option.We discovered Nader.We decided to try a political experiment: We wouldn't engage in any debate on the issues. We wouldn't even really educate ourselves on what Nader believed. We would simply try to make voting for him cool, and see if we could win the school's mock election that way.For many of us, it wasn't about the issues. It was about protesting the two-party system that has been dominated by white men and corrupted by money.A few weeks before the election, a poll of students confirmed what we suspected: Nader was way ahead of Dole and right on the heels of Clinton in our mock election. We called the Nader campaign. He was going to be in Denver the following week, and his campaign was excited enough about our news that Nader scheduled a visit to Santa Fe to meet with us and speak publicly at the Roundhouse.So in 1996, Nader held a press conference at the Roundhouse, with me and another student by his side, and talked about his presidential campaign and the importance of the next generation, using us as the example. Before the news conference began, he pulled us aside and talked with us for several minutes about the importance of being involved.linton won the mock election at St. Mike's. Nader finished a close second, and Dole's finish was pathetic.The point is this: Nader has taken the time during his presidential runs to foster excitement in independents and young people, and he had some success in 2000. That scared Democrats. But instead of looking inward and considering why they were failing to bring Nader supporters into the Democratic Party, they blamed Nader for Bush.That's like saying the car manufacturer is responsible when a drunken driver crashes its automobile into a crowd of people. Or like saying the gun maker is responsible when a psychopath goes on a rampage on a college campus. Nader didn't force people to vote for him. They made that choice.As proof that Nader wasn't to blame for Gore's loss, an equally uninspiring John Kerry lost four years later without Nader garnering any significant support. The problem wasn't Nader. It was the Democratic Party.This year, people are turning out in record numbers to see Clinton and Obama. To some degree, the party has changed. It has figured out that it needs more than white, male candidates. It's decided to pay more attention to Hispanics. Obama, and to a lesser degree Clinton, have learned that if they speak to the issues of young people, some young people will pay attention and get involved.I give Nader some of the credit for the Democratic Party's awakening. The support he gained in 2000 forced the party to begin a serious examination of its own problems. It took another devastating loss in 2004 for the party to really take those problems seriously, and in 2008 we've seen a slate of Democratic presidential candidates much different than any in this nation's history.Clinton and Obama can trash Nader all they want, but his 2000 run helped pave the way for them to be where they are today. They should thank him, and realize that his insistence on continuing to pester the Democratic Party by running for president again this year is helping keep Democrats honest.I wish the Republican Party had a similar thorn in its side.Heath Haussamen is an independent, online political journalist based in Las Cruces, N.M.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• obama
• clinton
• edwards
• kucinich
• ron
• paul
• nader
• romney
• McCain
• giuiliani
• gore
• moore
• college
• gonzalez
• olbermann
• mathews

[JohnnyRock2000]

It is possible to destroy a political party. Canada did it in 1992. Brian Mulrooney, a Bush like arrogant asshole. We voted him sooooo far out of power that the party ceased to exist. True.

[oz22verizon]

but we have such stupid f&cking asshole people in this country who only have enough brains to repeat what ever main stream media tells them, that i dont think we, the small group of thinkers can do it on our own

[zzyzxhorde]

Nader is going take away votes and ruin Ron Paul's chance at winning the general election!

[oz22verizon]

its like you didnt listen to a word nader just said, and thats why you'll get what you deserve as a result

[freeemason]

I think the best way would be to change the democratic party since trying to introduce a 3rd competitive party would be a momentous task. Not to mention they would be on the extreme left and that would probably make it hard to galvanize centrist republic votes in general election. I

[oz22verizon]

nader isnt compeating with anyone. the democratic party is long gone. it ended in the 80's its just that not enough people have been screwed yet, as more people do,(get screwed) then you'll see the increase of the independents greens and libratarians

[pearharp]

My understanding of Ralph Nader is that he is currently America's greatest and most present heroe. The stranglehold that corporations have on our government, on our democracy is profoundly real. VERY, VERY REAL! Ralph Nader has dedicated his entire adult life to breaking that stranglehold through unearthing and encouraging the natural strength and powers within our legal system. Ralph Nader is more of a gift than we realize. IT'S NOT TOO LATE! NADER 08!

[mexfromsotx]

never vote for the lesser of two evils. be an optimist. vote for the greater of two goods.

[stavrophotography]

This asshole helped Chimpy Mcflight suit get into the white house!

[JohnnyRock2000]

One way to think about it is this, and it is the truth too.

The Neocons began the huge downhill slide of America. Without their "vision" if you want to call it that, America would not be where it is today. 20 years ago they were just a bunch of guys talking Middle East domination and how to focus America toward that. Just an idea that they worked on, had no idea whether it would come true or not...but it came to be. Just a bunch of guys, such a few number of people with a solid focus.

[0613162k]

The GOP & DNC are both corporate war parties.

They both helped exclude Nader & Buchanan in 2000.

Watch youtube video entitled:

"No Democracy in America"

which exposes how the DNC/ GOP sponsored corporate debates tried to arrest Nader.

Both parties excluded their own anti war anti corporate candidates from the Republiacn & Democrat debates (ron Paul, Gravel, Kucinich).

They both feel they're entitled to votes they never earned with views they fail to represent & infact exclude.

[0613162k]

There's no difference on the major issues. BOTH support:

1 maintained occupation in Iraq

2 both support redeployment not withdrawl of troops to increased war in Afghanistan where more civilians have died than 9/11

3 Obama beat Biden, Hillary & McCain to declaring expanding war on terror into Pakistan

4 both support increased military expansion already >50 % of gov. spending when Us is in debt

5 vote for $700 billon corporatae bailout at taxpayers expense

Vote differnt. Nader 2008.

[0613162k]

"I start with the premise that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers"

Ralph Nader

This is the key difference between Nader & the Democrats. His aim is a cause, their aim is to win and win the war but lose the battle.

A vote for Obama mandates increased military expansion when US is in debt, billions of $ on corporate bailouts at taxpayers expense, increased war in Afghanistan, expanded war in Pakistan, maintained ocupation in Iraq. McCain still wins.

[0613162k]

You're responding to a message from 3 months ago, and it takes me back to how much progress Nader has made in such a short time, from being on a few ballots to 45 state ballots.

He is a viable national candidate. The fraud "debates" by corporate media present less options to the public then voters will see on 45 state ballots.

Therefore th only reason why he won't win is if the majority of people who support his platform vote AGAINST it.

Ralph Nader 2008. Yes we can.

[travelfar22]

NADER/Gonzalez = WE the PEOPLE

Democrats and Republicans = THEY the CORPORATION$

* The two headed Democrat and Republican monster is not

to be trusted as they've proven over and over!

* No more Pay-Or-Die health Care $ystem!

We Want Single-Payer like Canada!

* "Spoiler" is a politically bigoted word used by the opposing

parties to keep the independents out of the race.

[jimlaregina]

Those who think voting for Nader means you help John McCain or voting for Bob Barr means helping Barack Obama need to get behind Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) where "second choice" votes are added should no one win more than 50%.