Hey GOP, the party of personal responsibility: we'd rather blame Nader than hold you accountable

[noiretextatique]

for all the atrocities you continue to commit. so...please continue, because we don't have a clue as to how to stop you, but we get endless hours of joy from blaming Nader for everything you've done.

stopping the recount in florida 2000--Nader's fault. if he wasn't running, there would have been no need for a recount (never mind katerine harris' voter purge). but since there was a voter purge in florida, and problems elsewhere, it's still Nader's fault because we don't hold the GOP accountable for its crimes. the GOP is the only legitimate opponent of democrats.

gore v. bush--Nader's fault. if he didn't run, it wouldn't have been close enough to steal.

citizen's united---Nader's fault. if hed hadn't run, and if you hadn't stopped the recount and if you hadn't created a one-time only law for george bush that disenfranchised all the voters...president gore would have filled a scotus spot. clearly: nader's fault.

voting rights clause struck down: Nader's fault. see number 1 or 2 or 3.

rinse, lather, repeat.

how different things might have been if americans were more pissed off about gore v. bush (some call if treason) than Nader's decision to participate in an election (which is not illegal, last time i checked.)

oh...and Nader is also really, really bad for stating there is no difference between corporate bought and paid for republicons and corporate bought and paid for democrats. there is no difference between michelle bachmann and sheila jackson lee...yeah, that's exactly what he meant!!!

[Autumn]

1. I'm just going to sit here

and

[noiretextatique]

3. me too

[BlueToTheBone]

2. BTW...Nadir is a republican. n/t

[noiretextatique]

4. i knew it!

because he took money from republicons! he is nothing more than the firebag equivalent of a teabagger!

[noiretextatique]

5. oh c'mon nader haters

can't you join a thread that is openly ridiculing your childish obssession with all things nader?

[msongs]

6. they'd rather ignore al gore's crummy campaign or the fact he actually won and gave up nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Well, his other choice was taking up arms

We're you willing to pick up arms? Yup, once the SCOTUS sad Bush won, a wrong headed decision if you ever had one...that was the only choice gore had...acknowledge defeat, or civil war

Why he did what he did for the good of the nation.

[noiretextatique]

8. yep...and just look at how great that turned out

perhaps a civil war then would have eliminated the need for one now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. You make decisions on what you know at the momemt

Not 14 years later. Btw a civil war then...or now will lead to millions dead (20 m or so) and millions more displaced ( 100 m or so).

I don't have the rose colored glasses. Oh and I expect one, by the way

[noiretextatique]

20. me too...it is inevitable

and, i don't know about gore, but i sure as hell knew how awful bush would be for the country, and for the world.

[gulliver]

10. Bush and Nader voters have the same blame.

It's not like the Bush voters are off the hook. They are on it. But so are the Nader voters.

[OilemFirchen]

13. STOP. THIS. NOW.

You must blame one or the other. Only Authoritarians see multiple facets. New Progressivism rejects all but the correct conclusion.

If you defy the Emo Paradigm, you are clearly placing yourself in the minority. Being in the minority is unaccepable to Modern Liberalism. You must conform or be cast out.

You have been warned. Next step... IGNORE!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. Rec

[noiretextatique]

15. i hold bush voters accountable too

especially the DEMOCRATS who voted for bush.

[still_one]

26. Or the so-called ray gun democrats

[JoePhilly]

11. F**k them both (see how easy that was).

[noiretextatique]

17. sure is easy

critical thinking requires a bit more

[Jennicut]

28. Thank You.

Simplicity. They are both to blame for the atrocity of 2000.

[byeya]

12. I am going to take up the cause of George HW Bush: If it weren't for Ross Perot and his 19% of the

vote, Bush 1 would have had his 2nd term and we would have been spared Bill Clinton. (sharp intake of breath)

[noiretextatique]

18. LOL

third parties are only bad when they hurt democrats.

[great white snark]

25. Actually, 3rd parties are bad all the time.

Doesn't have to be one or the other, the GOP and Nader are both to blame.

Now run along and peddle your 3rd party support on a 3rd party website if you can find one that can afford the bandwith bills.

[dsc]

32. actully there is literally no evidence that Perot cost Bush any state outside of NJ

and scant evidence even for NJ. On the other hand, there is ample evidence Nader cost Gore both NH and FL. Clinton lead every single solitary two candidate poll both nationwide and in swing states save one or two in NJ. You just plain are telling a story you like.

[arely staircase]

14. what's with all the nader posts all of a sudden?

has he become relevant again?

[noiretextatique]

16. nope...crazy scotus decisions

brought out some folks who decided nader was to blame for the idiots on the court.

[SidDithers]

19. Fuck Nader...

And I can multitask.

Sid

[noiretextatique]

21. cogent, well-thought out argument

[SidDithers]

24. It's what the OP deserved...nt

Sid

[hrmjustin]

22. The fact is Nader cost Gore votes. Yes Nader had the right to run and I will defend that, but...

... he knew his voters who would have voted if he was not on the ballot would have gone to Gore. NH and FL could very well have gone to Gore and the campaign would have been different if Nader was not in the race. Gore had to heavily defend NM, WI, OR, WA, and MN because Nader made those states closer than they would have been without Nader on the ballot. Gore could have spent more time in other states and won if Nader was not in the race.

The republicans are responsible for their own actions. Nader Chose to run hard in 2000 and he had to have known that he would cost Gore votes. He has to live with that and if he can so be it. He had the right to run but he knew he could not win. He made an impact like he want to but it was not the impact many of his supporters wanted.

I personally hold Nader responsible for Bush. Yes Gore ran a bad campaign and yes the GOP cheated but if Nader was not on the ballot the GOP efforts to cheat would not have likely worked IMO. You have a different opinion and I respect it but I disagree.

[hfojvt]

23. maybe because you expect an enemy to work for your defeat

you don't expect a friend to betray you.

You know, Nader was supposed to be a guy on the side of the people, on the side of the environment.

Then he helps to elect Bush.



The whole point of blaming Nader is so that in the future, people who care about progressive causes won't cut off their nose to spite their face by voting 3rd or 4th party and helping Republicans win. You know, so instead of losing by 48.1% to 48%% to 3%, we could win 51% to 48.1%. Although we won 53% to 46% in 2008 and that did not do us much good.

But the huge loss in 2010 certainly didn't help.

And for all the complaints I have about Obama, I am quite sure that McCain with a Republican Congress would be much, much, much worse.

How about we try winning back the House instead of arguing about Nader or promoting 3rd parties here?

[great white snark]

27. "How about we try winning back the House instead of arguing about Nader or promoting 3rd parties"

Well said. The lessons of history do not escape you.

[graham4anything]

29. two things are 100% true with a third add on bonus

one- ralph nader lied. regardless of anything else, he did lie. both parties are NOT the same
two Yesterdays ruling would NOT have happened had Al Gore been seated

three (added bonus) had everyone reelected Jimmy Carter, the SCOTUS would now be 9 to 0



because SCOTUS alone proves both parties are not the same

one thing is assured though-I thank all the fine people in the press yesterday, as to a person, all I saw indeed went out of their
way to praise both Dr. King and LBJ.
Lyndon Baines Johnson has finally been redeemed.

Something I have known all along.

Because I never sold LBJ out and LBJ would have won against Nixon in 1968 head to head. Like he helped do such in 1960.

God Bless Dr. King, LBJ and Barack Obama.
All 3 shall be remembered forever.

Once Hillary has that landslide victory in 2016

at that point, Ralph Nader will be the forgotten man.
Then when someone brings his name up(and at that time, I shall no longer mention him)
people will say WHO? and shrug their shoulders.

Ralph could have been.
could have been a senator
could have been a governor
could have been a cabinet member
could have been something
could have been a contender

after Hillary's landslide
all he will be is WHO???

IMHO.

And thank you Barack Obama for nominating Sonia Sotomayer and Elana Kagan, two of the best.
And my Hillary nominate you in 2018, and that be one of the change SCOTUS to win back the court.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. Elana Kagan is one of the best Obama nominations - IF YOU FAVOR ELIMINATING THE MIRANDA RULE

For some background, see

"Elena Kagan and the Death of Miranda
"On June 1, (2010) the U.S. Supreme Court finally dealt Miranda a death blow. Elena Kagan, Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, was complicit in Miranda's demise. Her participation may give some insight into her views on the rights of criminal defendants, and her understanding of how the law affects ordinary people.

"In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the decision announced today, the Court ruled 5-4 that a suspect has to speak in order to assert the right to remain silent. Van Chester Thompkins was given his Miranda warnings and remained quiet for almost 3 hours. During that time, officers continued the interrogation and Thompkins eventually made an admission. A federal court found that he had asserted his right to remain silent by actually remaining silent, and that officers should have ended the questioning. The Supreme Court reversed.
...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-weisselberg/elena-kagan-and-the-death_b_596447.html

"Elena Kagan Votes With Alito and Thomas To Undermine Miranda
"When Elena Kagan was nominated, there were very few of us voicing strenuous objection, one of the primary reasons I did was her complete lack of experience in the adversarial system, especially with her total lack of knowledge and interest in criminal process issues, which would be critical in the face of the Obama DOJ’s determination to further gut Miranda.

"The feared Kagan chickens have come home to roost. The Supreme Court just announced its decision in Howes v. Fields, and the decision is a significant further erosion of the critical Constitutional protections embodied in Miranda. The ruling specifically holds that police are not automatically required to tell prisoners of their legal right to remain silent and have an attorney present when being questioned in prison about another crime.
...
http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/02/21/elena-kagan-votes-with-alito-and-thomas-to-undermine-miranda/

So, is/was the Miranda rule too liberal for you?

If so, Obama (who knew Kagan's view on Miranda before nominating her), made the best anti-Miranda nomination that he could.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Two minutes of hate are predictable

When things get uncomfortable for deep partisans.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. Well said. Thanks for saying it so clearly and forcefully.

[Zoeisright]

35. Nader enables repukes.

And he took money from them, fucking hypocrite that he is. By the way, every action has several actions that make it possible. Nader in the race made it possible for Bush to steal Florida. I can't believe people are so stupid that they still don't understand that.

You are also putting words in his mouth. He did NOT parse his repulsive "democrats are the same as republicans" with the word "corporate". Fuck Nader to hell.