Nader bashing again, really? C'mon man.

MadHound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Sep-21-11 06:20 AM
Original message

Nader bashing again, really? C'mon man.

Once again, in an eleven year old annual ritual, the Nader bashers are out in force. Really, don't you folks have anything better to do. C'mon, the election was over and done eleven years ago, give it a rest. The way some of you folks go after Nader makes it seem like you have ulterior motives, like using him to cover up the failings of others, like Obama.

But for the edification of some, and the education of others, let me go through Nader's case one more time.

In the election in Florida in '00, Nader got a bit over 97,000 votes in that state, less than two percent of the vote. Now the popular wisdom says that these votes would have otherwise gone to Gore, and they cost Gore the election. Well, that may be the popular wisdom, but it isn't necessarily the correct wisdom. According to DLC head Al From(a man in need of a scapegoat), Nader was actually good for Gore's campaign in Florida. "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."
<http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

So, without Nader in the race, Bush would have picked up most of his votes. So much for the meme that those were Gore votes.

And let's not forget the fact that Gore actually won the most votes in Florida, when all was said and done. The problem was how Gore conducted the recount process. First of all, he should have demanded a complete recount, but his advisers(one of whom is the current Dick Daley, who now works for Obama:scared:) convinced him to cherry pick the recounts. Bad move.

Worse move, the journalist Greg Palast approached the Gore campaign early on with reams of solid evidence that fifty thousand voters(and the number was rising) had been deprived of their vote by Katherine Harrison working in concert with the Bush campaign. Now think of this, here you are in a tight recount race, and you are handed the means with which to banish your opponent to the political wilderness forever. What would you do? I imagine most of us would go public ASAP. Gore didn't, instead, he remained mum, and ultimately 100,000 plus voters were disenfranchised with hardly a peep, and nothing approaching justice.

And in the end, the Florida debacle was decided by the Supreme Court, in a one of a kind decision that still stinks to high heaven. Let's not forget that.

But what heinous deeds has Nader done since then? He has criticized presidents, presidential candidates, and government in general on a bipartisan basis. *GASP*, so have many other pundits and politicians. He has run in third party presidential campaigns. *GASP*, but others have as well, and besides, it is Constitutionally guaranteed right to do so, but heaven forbid the man exercises his Constitutional rights. He has taken money from Republicans. *GASP*, really now, have you looked at where the funding for Democratic candidates came from? If you are all outraged about Nader taking a few thousand dollars from Republicans, I suggest you have the smelling salts ready, then go over to Open Secrets and do some digging into where Democratic candidates have gotten their money. Not thousands, not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated to Democratic candidates. This is a common practice, one that has been done for years and decades. It insures that these people have influence no matter who wins(and judging by Obama's right of center administration, that money has been a wise investment).

So what is left to demonize Nader about? I think that the thing that galls some people the most is that Nader dares to speak the truth, and to show up the two party system for the farce that it is. In the eyes of some, that is the most heinous crime of all, speaking the truth.

How dare he speak truth to power:eyes:

Nader also serves as a convenient diversion, a way to rile up people and make them forget what a hash Obama is making of it. Well, that tactic is using its usefulness. You're going to have to find something new, like Obama actually doing what he was elected to do.

I know I won't convince some of the diehards here. I know there are some, who for whatever reason, will continue to demonize Nader long after he has died. But the fact of the matter, the truth, is that Nader doesn't deserved to be demonized. He has been more honest than most politicians, and I think that's what galls some folks around here the most of all.