Allright. ?I guess I have to be part of the Green Party pile on. ?I have a lot of friends in European Green Parties, they’re great people, and they actually manage to get into office, thanks largely to parliamentary style party list systems. ?And once in office, they play ball, because that’s what politics is about. ?Try that one on for size.

And by the way, Greens in Europe still have to reach some threshold of support to get a seat in a proportional legislature, usually in the range of 5%. ?That often will get a Green a seat in the national parliament, but sometimes more than one seat in local legislatures, where Green Party support is concentrated, and thus larger than 5%.

This is not the case in the United States. ?Greens in the US whine that it’s not their fault that they can’t get to 5%, or even one half of 1%. ?Well, fine, whatever. ?That doesn’t keep Greens from having a catastrophic affect on our country, which not one single Green Party member has ever taken responsibility for, not once.

And that Green Party contribution to America was the presidency of George W. Bush. ?But for Ralph Nader voters in Florida in 2000, the most calamitous presidency in my lifetime would never have happened. ?That is a proven, documented, unassailable fact. When the Green Party takes credit for George W. Bush, I’ll take the Green Party seriously. ?Until then, I’ll take the Monster Raving Looney Party more seriously than the US Green Party.

Tagged with:
  • Pingback: Twitted by plunderbund()

  • Dennis Spisak

    This Election is Ted Strickland’s to win or lose…not the Green Party’s.

    We Greens can’t help it if you have an ineffective Governor running for Re-Election and you can’t count on Progressive Liberals to help you in 2010!

  • Nifty Lawrence

    What simplistic thinking. Bush beat Gore ONLY BECAUSE a very small amount of people in Florida voted for Nader. It's proven fact. Yeah, right.

    First, why should voters ANYWHERE apologize for voting for the candidate of their choice? Isn't that what elections are all about? Oh, wait. I forgot. Democrat candidates are OWED those progressive votes. What a warped sense of entitlement.

    Second, to blame the results of any election on a single factor is also lazy thinking.

    How about this? What if Gore won his HOME STATE of Tennessee in the 2000 election? If he could have managed to accomplish that, people wouldn't still be crying about Nader.

    What if those Nader voters in New Hampshire would have voted for Gore instead?

    Gore won the popular vote. What if we didn't have the Electoral College? What if more states than 1 or 2 did not have a winner-takes-all system with regard to its electoral votes? (But, no. We can't do that or those pesky third parties might actually make some progress).

    What if SCOTUS didn't step in & hand the election to Bush?

    But, no. IT'S ALL BECAUSE some Nader voters in Florida dared to take votes that belong to the Democrats & instead voted for the candidate of their choice. The nerve of them.

  • typical Green. what if? maybe then? what about that? what about this? if i had an engine and four wheels i'd be a car!!!

    take responsibility for the George W. Bush presidency, then we can talk. it's the single most powerful use of the Green Party in the history of its existence, you should be quite proud.

  • I find support of a party candidate with zero chance of winning or of effecting any kind of change ludicrous. I also find 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida voting for George W. Bush equally ludicrous. That's twice as many people who voted for Nader in Florida.

    Seems like the Florida Democratic Party needs to take responsibility based on your argument.

  • Nifty Lawrence

    Tell Gore to win HIS HOME STATE then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    But I know it feels better to shift blame.

  • i think Al Gore takes that responsibility. not one Green takes theirs.

    this is where US Greens need to take a lesson from Euro Greens. it's called coalition building. Euro Greens know how to work the system to get into government and make change. US Greens can't even accept responsibility for the plainly proven facts their actions lead to. and until they do, they'll be seen as the petulant whiners they plainly are.

  • Nifty Lawrence

    Euro Greens have nowhere near the roadblocks to overcome to get a piece of the pie in much/most of Europe as third parties do in the U.S.

    From the Electoral College to who gets to serve on Boards of Election in Ohio.

    And then you speak of working in coalition & call those same potential partners “petulant whiners”. Fantastic.

  • you won't take responsibility for your actions, so that makes you a petulant whiner. you still seem to think it's perfectly reasonable for a Green to vote in a manner that results in George W. Bush being president. if you think that, you aren't interested in coalition building, just grandstanding.

    and you don't think Ralph Nader would have gotten access, perhaps even into government, had he helped Al Gore become president? i think Ralph Nader would have been in line for a cabinet post had he pulled out and endorsed Gore at any point, even the day before the election.

    but that's not what Ralph Nader wanted. Ralph Nader wanted to grandstand, just like you're doing here. if Nader was interested in leveraging his power for his claimed ideals, he would have used the height of that leverage to endorse Gore and get something for it.

    instead, Nader used that leverage to elect George W. Bush, knowing full well that result was entirely likely. and thus, Ralph Nader will go down in history as the epitome of Green Party petulance.

    that's why Greens have no access. they don't take it when it's staring them in the face. had Nader taken that route, he'd have been in the strongest position any Green in American history has ever been, and could have worked to solve the other access issues you cite.

    but whining felt better.

  • Great point.

  • Moag

    There are many reasons why Gore lost the election to Bush including, yes, Gore losing Tennessee, and Katherine Harris disenfranchising many minority voters, and the Electoral College… AND Ralph Nader and his supporters trying to be holier-than-thou.

    Ask your self this, Nifty Lawrence: which of those factors did you personally have the most impact on? And did your actions make it more or less likely that Bush would win?

    If any one of those many factors had been different, our country would be a hell of a lot better off today — though I bet some folks, having not had to live through the Bush administration, would still claim that there is no difference between Bush and Gore.

    To the Green Party and it’s defenders: pointing out that someone else also screwed up royally is not a defense for your own arrogance and shortsightedness.

  • Moag

    So, name one candidate who would be better than Obama… who also topped at least 5% in any national poll for president in any year?

    If you think Obama is not progressive enough, you are far outside the mainstream of the American electorate (not a value judgement, just a fact), and your choices are to either give up or support the best available (albeit imperfect) candidate.

    Just please don’t do anything to actually help elect the worst candidate… like Nader did in 2000.

  • seditious

    Blaming Bush all on the Greens is a bunch of b.s.

    Ralph Nader's participation in the 2000 election drew enough votes away from Al Gore that it was easy for the Supreme Court and Jeb Bush to deflect media notice away from Florida's illegal vote-rigging in the pre-election purging of the voter rolls and thus select George W. Bush as President.

    Gore deserves blame for choosing Joe LIEberman as his running mate. And the leadership of the Democratic Party was at fault for not getting people in the streets in Florida when the Rethug Brooks Brothers riots were going on.

    We should all take responsibility for the 2000 Republican coup. Look how people take to the streets in countries such as Iran and Ukraine and when the wealthy elites steal an election.

    Really Tim, you're living in a fantasy world spinning it the way you are.

  • question – how much money do you think Ralph Nader would have raised for the Green Party as a member of Al Gore's cabinet for 8 years? what could the Green Party have done with it?

    i'll wait.

  • Havana Gila

    “what if? maybe then? what about that? what about this? if i had an engine and four wheels i'd be a car!!!”

  • one more thing – a Green telling me I'm in a fantasy world is precious. here's your problem.

    Al Gore was pursuing the presidency. he did all he could to get there, and failed on many counts, including losing his home state, etc. but he was sincerely pursuing the presidency, and had every chance to get it, and never did a single thing that he believed might help George W. Bush.

    Ralph Nader was not pursuing the presidency, never was, and never had any chance to get it. and at the moment of his greatest influence, chose to continue this charade to the benefit of George W. Bush.

    the Green Party followed him.

  • chrisbluelake

    Tim, I don't know how many books you may have on your nightstand, but I would like to recommend you putting this book at the top of your reading list – Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tranny by Theresa Amato. There are countless barriers to real democracy that remain in this country. Basically, progressive candidates of any political stripe are marginalized by party establishment corporatists. Barack Obama is not a progressive. To refer to him as one is an offense to true progressives everywhere.

    Despite the greatest electoral majority since Lyndon Johnson crushed Barry Goldwater in 1964, Barrack Obama has betrayed everything he ran on. In every case where he had the opportunity to confront power ? in financial bailouts, financial regulation, health care, wars and military spending, utilities and global warming, national surveillance ? Obama has sided with the rich and powerful against the interests of the American people. He has probably engendered more cynicism, more disaffection with government than any president since Richard Nixon. It will deal a staggering blow to the hopes of mobilizing masses of people again for a real take back of government. And he?s not even one year into it.

    The best description of Barack Obama comes in the form of a quote by populist icon Jim Hightower ? ?There?s nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.? Of course, most progressives now realize what I have known all along, Barack Obama will never take that left turn unto the road less traveled. He was, is and will always be a fierce defender of the status quo of the Democratic Party establishment. Wall Street and the Too Big Too Fail Mob owns and occupies this White House, just a Big Oil and the American Defense Contractor syndicate owned and occupied the Bush White House.

    Is it any wonder people disengage themselves from the Democratic Party that is but a shell of what it once was and stood for during the FDR and Progressive Era?

    Blaming the Green Party for George Bush is mentally lazy, and no – I'm not affliated with the Green Party, even though I voted for Ralph Nadar in 1996, 2004 and 2008. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 – I don't hold the Green Party responsible – I hold the weak and spineless Democratic Party responsible.

  • seditious

    Where did you get this idea that Gore would have put Nader in his cabinet from, your hat?

    Like Obama, Bill Clinton had very few progressives in his cabinet even though Clinton campaigned on his “New Covenent” progressive platform in 1992 that was FDR-esque. Labor unions got Clinton in office then he shit on them by ram-rodding NAFTA and WTO.

    Clinton's “third-way” sell-out had a lot to do with allowing the Bush coup to be possible. Along with Bubba's zipper problems.

  • seditious

    Joseph wrote on another PB thread :
    “No one is shitting on Kucinich. I love Dennis.

    But Dennis is one of the few electeds who can get away with being an unapologetic idealist because his seat is safe. Dennis would never hold his seat if he was in my district (15th) and he could never win statewide office.”


    I disagree however informed you are about politics. Here's why….

    Explain to me Alan Grayson's success in a right-leaning district in Orlando that had been Republican for many decades. Progressive Dems did better than Rahm's corporate Dems in 2006 and 2008. Independents want someone who will stand for something and will fight for them.

    I live in the 15th too. Kilroy will have another tough race because she's been much too corporate-friendly and has gone along with incremental change in her next race with Stivers. The 15th has most of OSUin it. I think Dennis Kucinich would surprise you if he ran in this district. He'd get a lot of people to vote for him who are cynical about politics and can't diffentiate between a corporate Repub and a corporate Dem.

  • where did you get this idea that Ralph Nader could be president, out your ass?

  • Havana Gila

    All of this is ignoring the fact that Bush was re-elected in 2004, so I guess the country as a whole didn’t have too big a problem with him.

    Look, I’ve never voted Green in my life, but after this past year, I’m beginning to understand the impulse to do so. The Democratic Party keeps moving farther and farther to the right, to the point that some progressives just can’t manage to hold their noses and continue to support them. As a progressive, what’s the point of voting Dem if all it gets you is things like DADT, DOMA, NAFTA, no-strings-attached Wall Street bailouts, and potentially a nationally mandated health care plan with no price controls? The only thing I see that’s arrogant and shortsighted is relying on them to do so without throwing them a bone once in awhile.

    I don’t think anyone votes Green because they think they’re going to win the election. It’s just a way of telling the Dems “Hey, you could have had this vote if you didn’t suck so bad!” If they didn’t have the Green Party as on outlet for their frustrations, I’m guessing a lot of them would have just stayed home. Which it seems would have been fine with you, since it’s not the disaffected voters who stayed home (or voted for Bush) that you seem to have a problem with, just those dirty, dirty Greens.

  • mvirenicus

    nader would somehow be worse than what we have now?

  • Yes

  • mvirenicus

    sorry, i just don't see it, and i'm not even a big nader fan.

  • seditious


    We're all rooting for Obama and hope our criticisms of him are productive. He and other Democrats just better not take progressive votes for granted.

    I think many progressives feel betrayed by the last two Democratic Presidents who have used bait and switch tactics. Again, Bill Clinton ran a very progressive campaign in 1992 on his New Covenent platform. Then he governed Republican lite. You can blame him more than anyone for George W. then becoming president. Had Bubba governed to the left of Nixon on economic and labor issues, Nader wouldn't have even been a factor in 2000.

    Obama also rose to the top of the Democratic heap based on anti-war credentials. He marketed himself around Change and Hope and said he'd “spread the wealth around.” Like Clinton, he's been Republican-lite on about every issue.

    And it's politically stupid. Had the Dems delivered Medicare for All it would create 40 year Dem majorities similar to FDR's New Deal generational coat tails. Instead, Obama's Health care reform will create a generation of Republicans when 20 and 30 year olds figure out that they are mandated to buy over-priced private insurance by law (which many think is unconstitutional).

    And, what's up with not investigating the Bush crimes—-Yoo, Bybee, Addington, Gonzalez, Cheney, and Bush? There's so much there. When these guy Rethugs come back in power they'll much worse knowing that Dems never hold them accountable.

  • mvirenicus

    personally, i'm very tired of the deference that those of us on the left are supposed to exhibit to this administration but then we have to put up with insults from those who consider themselves “pragmatists.” fork them. i think it's only beginning to dawn on them that they've got serious problems that will become evident in november of this year. i, for one, am using this year's elections to send a message, and i know i'm far from the only one. i don't have to leave my house to find others.

  • Try this on for size, whiner; here’s my standard response to Gorebots like you since 2000, and I’ll let you apply it to the Kerry/Bush in 2004, too:

    50 million Bush voters, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, the SCotUS, and Gore’s incompetence put Bush in the White House.

    All the math, polls, logic, common sense, and other evidence that has been presented to date won’t move GoreWhores in denial from their asinine nonsense position.

    Hey, Al From, Mr. DLC himself, has called off the Nader-bashing. Take a hint:


    “The assertion that Nader’s marginal vote count hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data,” Al From [DLC founder and CEO] wrote in the DLC’s report. “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.”

    [More proof that Nader HELPED Gore win the election!]

    Even DLC-head From admits that without Nader in the race, Bush would have done even BETTER, and probably WON outright!
    Nader-supporters switching to Gore at the last moment, in the MILLIONS, actually helped GORE WIN, which Gore then fumbled.
    You’re welcome, ingrate!

    Or do you deny Gore WON the election? HIS refusal to fight for his win rather than cave to bipartisan collegiality MAKES him a traitor to the cause of Democracy and Enfranchisement. Again, I would have been unhappy with whoever won the election, but, dammit, Gore probably won and having the selection STOLEN rankles me more than apparently it rankles Gore himself.

    It’s as if we, as a group, threw a 100-foot rope to a drowning Gore 102 feet away, yet Gore made no attempt to MOVE the two feet closer necessary to GRAB it, but YELLED at us for not having thrown a 102-foot rope, and then blamed US for his going under.

    Thanks to GoreWhore fear-mongering, perhaps 5 MILLION Nader supporters held their nose and voted for Gore. And what did they get for their efforts? A Gore who bashed them and Nader, and who didn’t even stand up to claim that voters who GAVE him the plurality were disenfranchised. What a wimp! I bet many now wish they’d voted for Nader after all.

    And I thought we might have seen the last of the sore, hard-core GoreWhore corps!

    We know they were building up a scapegoating strategy against Nader nearly a month before the election, but now, with the true results aborted, they’ve conceded to a coup and made Nader the fallguy! Nevermind the ingratitude for the millions of votes they DID manage to scare Nader voters into tossing to Gore; nothing but total destruction of Nader and the Greens will satisfy their denial and anger.

    IF the Dems spent half as much time attacking the Reps as they do the Greens, they might get somewhere. IF they spent as much time chastising the 10%+ of registered DEMS who VOTED FOR BUSH (13% in Florida) — 10-15 times the number of Dems who voted for Nader, far outweighing any perceived “Nader factor” in determining ANY losses Gore suffered in any state he might have carried — they might be taken more seriously. If they copped to the Party’s failure to pick a likable and believable candidate, the consultants’ failure to mount a competent campaign, and Gore’s monumental failures to beat the least qualified Prez candidate in a century, that honesty might get them back on the road to recovery from their denial.

    GORE defeated Gore, and bears perhaps 75% of the blame personally; allow 15% for dumb consultants and a corporate-whoring DLC and the Clinton fatigue; the other 10% includes thousands of random factors, from Bush kissing Oprah, to the weather in different locations on election day.

    But blame Nader? Focus on one tiny factor among thousands? Hey, blame the 50 million fools who voted for Bush, including 10%+ of registered Dems who voted for Bush. YOUR man Gore failed to get enough people to buy HIS BS over Bush’s BS to make it the slam-dunk it should have been.

    Can you explain again how MY vote for Nader in New York put Bush in office?

    No matter how you spin it, that’s Orwellian double-speak.

    I will give you $1000 if you can show how MY vote in New York for Nader put Bush in office.

    Some exit polls, nationwide, showed perhaps 40% MIGHT have voted for Gore, 40% for another alternate party candidate or nobody, and 20% for Bush, which votes MUST be deducted from Gore, leaving, at best, Gore GAINING 1 in 5 Nader votes that WERE cast for Nader. (Another poll said 40% might have gone to Gore, 30% to nobody or another 3rd party, 30% to Bush.) What isn’t considered is that Nader was polling 2 to 3 times his final vote (assuming that final vote is accurate, and isn’t short by the Nader votes “disappeared” or ignored) just days before the election, so that 1/2 to 2/3 of Nader supporters (estimated at 5 million MORE than ACTUALLY voted for Ralph) ALREADY sacrificed their hopes, gave into their fears, held their nose and voted for Gore. But THAT wasn’t enough for the greedy GoreWhores, who shrieked that EVERY Nader vote NOT cast for Gore would be HELD RESPONSIBLE for each and every hypothetical Bush travesty.

    No, 13 TIMES as many Dems in FL voted for BUSH than voted for Nader (which votes didn’t contribute to Bush’s total count against Gore a single vote)! THAT’S where your blame and anger should be directed!

    We’re talking ACTUAL numbers of ACTUAL votes cast, and the numbers show that Nader voters gave NO votes to Bush’s total, but 13% of Dems in Florida, and at least 10% nationwide, voted FOR BUSH, which was enough to give Bush the margin of victory in every state that Gore had a chance at and lost.

    Nader’s BEING in the race helped prevent Gore from losing to Bush outright. Nader is NOT responsible for Bush being in the White House. Of course, From and the DLC/DNC will NEVER cop to it being mostly GORE’S fault and THEIR fault, but they at least now have let Nader off the hook as being THE fall guy to pin it on. Take a hint, Gorebot!

    Hey, argue with CNN who provided the poll data; this is from CNN’s exit polls, first national:

    Vote in Two-Way Race All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
    Gore 48 % 96 % 1 % 0 % 2 %
    Bush 49 % 2 % 96 % 0 % 1 %
    Would Not Have Voted 2 % 23 % 28 % 9 % 31 %

    And this from Florida:

    Vote in Two-Way Race All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
    Gore 47 % 97 % 1 % 0 % 1 %
    Bush 49 % 1 % 96 % 0 % 1 %
    Would Not Have Voted 2 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

    And this from New Hampshire, another state where people claim Nader not being in the race would have given it to Gore. Not so:

    Vote in Two-Way Race All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
    Gore 47 % 95 % 1 % 0 % 3 %
    Bush 48 % 3 % 95 % 0 % 2 %
    Would Not Have Voted 4 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

    (I don’t know why the would-not-have-voted columns drop to 0% in the state races, unless they just left out that data. But the key point is that, nationally, and in two close races, BUSH clearly beats Gore IF Nader is not in the race. I presume that this is the data that Al From is quoting from. Do you have a problem with “independent media” CNN and their polls?)

    In addition to CNN and other previous polls I’ve mentioned:

    Stanley Greenberg’s poll found that if Nader had not run, Gore would have gotten only 38 percent of Nader’s voters and Bush would have gotten 25 percent. (Most of the rest would have stayed home.)

    YOU’D love to assume every vote Nader got came out of Gore’s hide, and there’s no evidence of that; indeed the available evidence shows that Gore wouldn’t even have gotten the majority of those. But “logic dictates” that EVERY Dem who voted for Bush was a vote Gore should have been able to count on; but whether or not that was so, it was certainly a vote NOT given to Gore BUT given to his strongest opponent, the eventual “winner,” and THAT was why Gore didn’t win outright.

    I have CNN exit polls as my evidence; let’s parse Florida (

    Party Identification All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader

    Democrat 40 % 86 % 13 % 0 % 1 %
    Republican 38 % 8 % 91 % 0 % 1 %
    Independent 22 % 47 % 46 % 1 % 4 %

    If Gore got 2,907,451 votes, and that represents 86% of REGISTERED Dems who voted, than the number of registered Dems would be close to 3,380,757 (2,907,451/.86). So 439,498 Dems in FL defected to Bush.

    Approx. 33,808 Dems voted for Nader in FL, and approx. 31,969 Reps voted for Nader in FL (2,909,176 Reps for Bush/.91 =
    3,196,896 registered Reps X .01 for Nader). So in the end, Nader votes drew almost equally from Dems and Reps, with an almost equal number of votes, approx. 96,837 total Nader FL votes
    -33,808 -31,969 = 31,060, coming from Inds.

    And before the Dems moan about the 1,839 difference that MIGHT have given Gore the win, IF Nader had not been a factor, wouldn’t 13% of the 33,808 Dems who voted for Nader followed the other 13% of Dems and voted for Bush, or 4,395 Dems for Bush?
    Likewise, wouldn’t the 8% of Reps for Gore be applicable with this group, or 8% of the 31,969 Reps who voted for Nader, or
    2,558 Reps for Gore? Adding these in to the totals we get 1,837 additional vote advantage for Bush, which statistically erases the 1,839 votes difference favoring Gore at first glance. This leaves independent voters, who voted evenly for Gore and Bush, and some Buchanan votes who made up any difference.
    Statistically, this is a dead heat, too close to call, and no way to reach any conclusions about Nader being a factor.

    But more important, 2 to 3 times as many votes as Nader finally GOT were votes that WOULD have likely gone for Nader had not Gore’s fear-mongering drumbeat already peeled them back ON election day, or the race had not been seen as so close (polling for Nader was as high as 6-7% one week before the election). So where’s the Dem gratitude for the tens of thousands (maybe 100,000 to 200,000) of Green-leaning votes that abandoned Nader, held their nose, and went to Gore and TECHNICALLY won him the White House? Yes, people who preferred Nader but wound up voting for Gore DID help give Gore the margin that gave him BOTH the national and Florida popular vote pluralities, but Gore and his Whores refuse to back off from blaming Nader, yet make nice-nice with the Bush team that STOLE the election!

    439,498 Dems voted for Bush, and only 255,752 Reps voted for Gore. That’s a 183,746 difference that WAY outweighs any influence by Nader, Buchanan, Hagelin, the communists or whomever, COMBINED. Votes for Nader added NO votes to Bush, but
    183,746 MORE Dems voted for Bush than Reps voted for Gore.
    There’s your election for ya… DOUBLE Whammy votes lost from Gore and added to Bush FROM DEMOCRATS! So I don’t want to hear ANY more whining from Dems about Nader costing Gore the election in Florida or ANYWHERE until I hear the same whiners blaming the DEM TRAITORS who actually voted FOR BUSH in FAR greater numbers EVERYWHERE.

    So drop it already. Or refute the numbers.

    The Dems may want to learn the lesson of not picking a lame candidate that people didn’t trust or like.

    Many of us expected that Gore, a sitting two-term VP under a popular president (subject to debate), in a booming economy (subject to debate), during peacetime (subject to debate), would whip a smirking, squinty-eyed, ex-cocaine-user, ex-drunk (subject to debate if he’s still ex), AWOL-from-National-Guard shirker, “compassionate” killer of blacks, women, and mentally-retarded teens, sentence-mangling doofus sock-puppet privileged son of a sentence-mangling political hack privileged father, failed businessman corporate welfare king, with the slimmest resume of any presidential candidate in 100 years.

    Neither can anyone explain how a vote cast for one candidate, Nader, magically appears on the vote total of another candidate, Bush. But, there it was — AVFNIAVFB — in all it’s Orwellian glory! Repeated ad nauseum until even seasoned media pundits began to buy it. But if you buy the logic of AVFNIAVFB, then why not accept the logic that a Dem actually voting for Bush is TWICE the damage: one loss from Gore’s column, one vote more needed to make it up; one added vote in Bush’s column, one vote more needed to catch up. TWO outside votes needed to equal the damage here, see?

    So how come AVFNIAVFB? As Dave Letterman said: “If a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, who do I vote for if I want to vote for Nader?”

    I’m waiting for you or anyone to explain the simple math: MY NY vote was NEVER in Gore’s column, nor did it wind up in Bush’s.
    So how did I help Bush? But a Dem who SHOULD have supported his party’s candidate but votes instead for Bush, is one less Gore vote that should have been there, and one vote ADDED to Bush’s total; it hurts Gore by one down, and helps Bush by one up. Is that so hard to grasp?

    The only people HERE who “helped elect Bush” would be those who VOTED for Bush; only THEIR Bush votes were tallied up in Bush’s column. It is patently illogical to claim that anyone else (except Supreme Court Justices, of course, and Jeb and Katherine) “helped elect Bush.”:

    I say again: Not one Nader vote added a single vote to Bush’s column; it was identical to staying home, or voting for another third-party candidate.

    What about people who voted for Hagelin, Buchanan, Browne, McReynolds, etc.?

    Shouldn’t your new mantra be: “Voting for anyone other than Gore was a vote for Bush”?

    Also, what about the 100 million who didn’t vote at all; aren’t they to blame for not blocking Bush? There are far more of them not voting for Gore than Greens not voting for Gore.
    Shouldn’t that be your NEW, new mantra: “Not voting was a vote for Bush”?

    IF every Florida vote for the Socialist, or Hagelin, had “gone” to Gore, Gore would have won outright! So blame them; they cost Gore the election as much (or little) as Nader. Why won’t you blame them? Or the Dem traitors who DID vote for Bush?
    Or the non-voters? OR the prisoners or ex-offenders who COULDN’T vote thanks to Clinton/Gore’s own policies?

    If you want to blame those who put Repub Bush in power, blame Jeb & Katherine, the SCOTUS, and Gore himself, for running the lousiest campaign in memory, and for being too clever by half in the post election fight by NOT calling for a complete hand recount.

    The blizzard of “librils” Gore flung around the country to strike FEAR into Nader voters, to get the 1 or 2% those votes represent to switch to Gore, and do nothing to win back the 11% DEMOCRAT defection to Bush, or go after 10% undecideds, or the
    100 million NON-VOTING registered voters, was clearly an endgame strategy to let Nader be the fallguy and Green voters the scapegoats. Since Al lost his homestate Tennessee, where Nader is no factor, this blame-game is going to be a harder sell than even Gore himself was. But you’ll do it anyway, because you can’t admit it was GORE that defeated himself in Tennessee and elsewhere.

    Remember, Gore DID take Florida. He WON with more votes. It’s in all the papers. Nader supporters HELPED Gore WIN in Florida and nationwide by helping his floundering campaign at the last minute. (You’re welcome.) THEN Gore wimped out on them all by conceding without a real fight. He ran his POST-election campaign as stupidly as his PRE-election campaign, making tactical and PR blunders again and again.

    Bush’s stealing the election was NOT fought by Gore or the Dems; not ONE white Dem senator or rep backed the black caucus’s call to reject the Florida results, and Gore abandoned them as well.
    Nice going.

    Did Nader cause Gore to lose his OWN state of Tennessee? Or cause Gore to so distance himself from Clinton that he also lost Arkansas? What about Dem strongholds like WV? GORE defeated Gore, plain and simple.

    Better come up with an excuse for the 11% of the DEM PARTY who BOLTED to VOTE FOR BUSH! That’s 11% OFF Gore’s expected total PLUS 11% ADDED to Bush, for a 22% Double Whammy! There’s your margin of loss TIMES THREE!

    Why bother with the piddling little Green Vote? I and my fellow Greens were under no obligation to support YOUR party’s candidate; we didn’t pick him, and he didn’t think we were important enough to let play in his “debate” sandbox.

    Just keep repeating: “It’s NAAAAAAADER’s fault”… that a HUGE proportion of the American people actually voted FOR Bush! Just ignore math and logic and ANY position can be defended.

    People just didn’t LIKE or TRUST Gore; but make Nader the scapegoat.

    Rather than ever give us a POSITIVE reason to support Gore, you tried to tear down the opposition. Great way to make friends and influence people. Sow hate and fear, and reap the whirlwind.

    BUT if your goal is to set up Nader as the fallguy, and Nader voters and Greens as the scapegoat to blame for Gore’s defeat, well, then it all makes perfect sense.

    No, gorebot, YOU just want to wallow in denial and focus on one of the minor ‘banana peels’ as Nader called them, instead of the BIG factors, like 10-13% of Dems nationwide voting for Bush. Is Nader to blame for THOSE votes too? Is Nader to blame for everything from the Johnstown Flood onward?

    Even DLC-head From admits that without Nader in the race, Bush would have done even BETTER, and probably WON outright!
    Nader-supporters switching to Gore at the last moment, in the MILLIONS, actually helped GORE WIN, which Gore then fumbled.
    You’re welcome, ingrate!

    Yep, Gore WON! He won more popular votes in enough states INCLUDING Florida to assure an electoral college win. Only he tried to be too clever by half, and instead of demanding a FULL state manual recount, he tried to cherry pick the counties, which gave the Bush team the opening to go to the SCotUS and outmaneuver the recount. Gore knew of the thousands of likely voters thrown off the rolls illegally, but didn’t contest it when he could have. And he didn’t fight after the election to demand the irregularities and biases were exposed. Gore won the election, but took a dive afterwards, proving he didn’t deserve the job or have the balls to do the tough stuff a president must.


    You might as well blame the 100 million non-voters, any few thousand of them in a select few states could have changed the outcome… IF you knew in advance which states, and which amounts. That over HALF the Nader supporters held their noses at the last minute and voted for Gore, which INSURED Gore’s victory (Gore DID win, or don’t you agree?), means that Nader supporters helped GORE WIN. YOU’RE WELCOME, INGRATE!

    Speaking for ME, I have NO regrets about voting for Nader in NY (in 1996 and 2000), as HE was the best candidate running, and the one closest to MY views. Gore should apologize to those who WASTED a vote on HIM, as HE didn’t even fight to keep the win he got!

    The Greens have been shouting to the Dems NOT to roll over and cave in to the Repubs on everything, but the Dems refused to listen, over and over.

    THEY, the Dems, are the guilty ones, NOT the messengers who were ignored.

    But you go on blaming the victim who fights for the good, and ignore the co-dependent “lesser” evil ones who “enable” the greater evil to have its way. I don’t hear you chastising Lieberman or the dozens of other gung-ho Dems on this one, or who OK’d Ashcroft and the gang.

    Since the media consortium PROVED that Gore won Florida under EVERY legal method of counting questionable ballots, and hence the election, your entire premise that Gore LOST, and thus Nader or anyone is to blame for Gore’s LOSS, is moot and invalid.

    As the first Green to be RE-elected to municipal office in New York State, but who no longer is in the Green Party due to frustration with and lack of respect for national Green “leadership,” I have proven that Greens CAN win elections, work with Democrats where necessary and fight them when they fail to live up to their principles.

    But calling your mere erroneous blatant assertion about Nader a “a proven, documented, unassailable fact” is the height of arrogance and silliness, and is refuted by the evidence I’ve presented.

    Steve Krulick, Ellenville NY

  • Even back right after the election, this was clear to those who weren’t looking for a convenient scapegoat:

    Moderator Note: Steve, please refrain from copy and pasting entire articles into comments. Links are fine.

  • Nifty Lawrence

    >>>Ask your self this, Nifty Lawrence: which of those factors did you personally have the most impact on? And did your actions make it more or less likely that Bush would win?

    I've been voting since 1988. I have never once voted for a Democrat for President (or a Republican). I have voted for certain Democrats in other races. I once voted for Jim Petro as Auditor, the only time I voted Republican.

    I vote third party (not just Green, and I'm not a member of that party, either) when I can. Sometimes I'll write in a name. Most times I'll skip a contest if I don't like any of the candidates. I refuse to vote for “the lesser of two evils”.

    It's my vote, I'll do what I want with it & I refuse to apologize.

    If you're comfortable voting for more war, more militarism, more wholesale violations of basic human rights, more corporate control of your life & country, then knock yourself out.

    The ONLY WAY third parties & independent candidates will EVER make any progress is if people actually vote for them in elections. That's what I pledged to do in 1988 & beyond.

    If you absolutely have to label me, I guess “progressive” will do. But I am not a Democrat, I never have been, and a huge amount of what the Democrat party does (and does not do) does not appeal to me whatsoever.

    So why do people keep insisting I, and people like me, vote Democrat? My vote does not belong to the Democrat party!

  • Nifty Lawrence

    Ralph Nader would have been offered a cabinet post & been able to use that to influence his issues?

    Sheesh, that's an awful lot of conjecture. What even makes you think Nader would have accepted? (If I remember correctly, the idea of bringing Nader into past administrations has been floated & he shot it down, saying his most influence comes from being outside of government, not in).

    And, really, Nader has no real interest in forwarding the goals of the Green Party in the U.S. I think he was honest & made it abundantly clear there was basically a quid pro quo arrangement with him running as a Green. Nader was never a formal member of the Green Party.

    But, again, we all know the 2000 election was about 90,000+ Nader voters in Florida, not 200,000 Democrat voters in the same state who voted for Bush.

    You guys couldn't deliver Florida for Gore with your own voters, you can't deliver the votes in your own party for meaningful health care reform. Heck, you can't even deliver votes for the current abomination of a health care bill. I anxiously await the analysis of how that's all Nader's fault, too.

    Shift the blame, shift the blame. It feels better than looking in the mirror.

  • You say “you guys”. What party are you affiliated with?

    I think the argument is that Nader could have leveraged his way into an administration to affect change. If he's not interested in governing then that is a stunning revelation. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's nothing but a cynical grandstanding phony only interested in being a spoiler and has never been a serious candidate.

    It's also a pretty stunning admission by the Green Party that they were willing to run a candidate for President who wasn't even a member of their party.

  • Nevermind the first part. I see you essentially answer this in another thread.

  • It is absolutely your vote, but you should lose the illusion that you are affecting any kind of change. It may be good for you (great for you really), but in this political system we have it is merely a feel good process. Voting third party is just that. Tossing your vote away and making a point while riding atop a high and mighty progressive horse…and potentially electing Republicans.

    I personally have no problem with your politics and we probably would agree on most things. You are also free to use your vote however you wish. I just choose to engage in a way that can actually get something done within the system. I grew out of protest votes in my 20s. More harm than good comes from it.

  • Moag

    Seditious: Actually, I agree with you in large part. I think, as a political strategy, Obama would do well to be more bold. He and the Democrats will likely get credit from a lot of independents just for getting something done, if he gets something done. And a well designed health care bill could, indeed, lock down Democratic support for decades, which is why Republicans are fighting it so hard.

    I wasn't trying to suggest we should avoid any criticism or pressure on Obama. I was trying to say that we ought not equate him with Bush or McCain simply because he's not as far left as some of us would like.

  • seditious

    Havana Gila,

    Bush stole the 2004 election, plain and simple. And the Democratic Party's lack of courage to take Election issues seriously made it possible. Here's a portion of Bush-backer Christopher Hitchen's March 2005 article, “Ohio's Odd Numbers”:

    First, the county-by-county and precinct-by-precinct discrepancies. In Butler County, for example, a Democrat running for the State Supreme Court chief justice received 61,559 votes. The Kerry-Edwards ticket drew about 5,000 fewer votes, at 56,243. This contrasts rather markedly with the behavior of the Republican electorate in that county, who cast about 40,000 fewer votes for their judicial nominee than they did for Bush and Cheney. (The latter pattern, with vote totals tapering down from the top of the ticket, is by far the more general?and probable?one nationwide and statewide.)

    In 11 other counties, the same Democratic judicial nominee, C. Ellen Connally, managed to outpoll the Democratic presidential and vice-presidential nominees by hundreds and sometimes thousands of votes. So maybe we have a barn-burning, charismatic future candidate on our hands, and Ms. Connally is a force to be reckoned with on a national scale. Or is it perhaps a trick of the Ohio atmosphere? There do seem to be a lot of eccentrics in the state. In Cuyahoga County, which includes the city of Cleveland, two largely black precincts on the East Side voted like this. In Precinct 4F: Kerry, 290; Bush, 21; Peroutka, 215. In Precinct 4N: Kerry, 318; Bush, 11; Badnarik, 163. Mr. Peroutka and Mr. Badnarik are, respectively, the presidential candidates of the Constitution and Libertarian Parties. In addition to this eminence, they also possess distinctive (but not particularly African-American-sounding) names. In 2000, Ralph Nader?s best year, the total vote received in Precinct 4F by all third-party candidates combined was eight.

    In Montgomery County, two precincts recorded a combined undervote of almost 6,000. This is to say that that many people waited to vote but, when their turn came, had no opinion on who should be the president, voting only for lesser offices. In these two precincts alone, that number represents an undervote of 25 percent, in a county where undervoting averages out at just 2 percent. Democratic precincts had 75 percent more under- votes than Republican ones.

    In Precinct lB of Gahanna, in Franklin County, a computerized voting machine recorded a total of 4,258 votes for Bush and 260 votes for Kerry. In that precinct, however, there are only 800 registered voters, of whom 638 showed up. Once the ?glitch? had been identified, the president had to be content with 3,893 fewer votes than the computer had awarded him.

    In Miami County, a Saddam Hussein-type turnout was recorded in the Concord Southwest and Concord South precincts, which boasted 98.5 percent and 94.27 percent turnouts, respectively, both of them registering overwhelming majorities for Bush. Miami County also managed to report 19,000 additional votes for Bush after 100 percent of the precincts had reported on Election Day.

    In Mahoning County, Washington Post reporters found that many people had been victims of ?vote hopping,? which is to say that voting machines highlighted a choice of one candidate after the voter had recorded a preference for another. Some specialists in election software diagnose this as a ?calibration issue.?

    Machines are fallible and so are humans, and shit happens, to be sure, and no doubt many Ohio voters were able to record their choices promptly and without grotesque anomalies. But what strikes my eye is this: in practically every case where lines were too long or machines too few the foul-up was in a Democratic county or precinct, and in practically every case where machines produced impossible or improbable outcomes it was the challenger who suffered and the actual or potential Democratic voters who were shortchanged, discouraged, or held up to ridicule as chronic undervoters or as sudden converts to fringe-party losers.

    Read the whole article here:

  • Adrienne

    Also, do not forget the GOPer have a long term strategy of voter disenfranchisement updated from Jim Crow days. It was very effective for the Bush years.

    They know that new voters are more likely to vote for dems so they enlist secs of state, govenors, and states ag to do the job for them.

    They also use voter caging, purging, and “yell voter fraud” to decrease the number of new eligible voters making the margin of victory small all easier to steal an election with.

    They also have changed state voting laws to make it hard for people to vote including disenfranchishing convicted felons effectively making them residents instead of citizens, changing ID requirements so voting now is for people who can afford to have IDs.

    They have made it hard for young people to vote by making residency requirements. Where do you vote if you're a college student? They can game the system to question your vote based on residency in either your parent's home or where your college is.

    Some people haven't learned to vote and do not have that tradition in their family….again this is to remind (insert whatever ethnic group here) that they have no power and no influence, and are not real citizens so why vote, why bother when it is so hard to do… that someone can steal the election.

    All of this nonsense is in the guise of making sure that voting is “secure” when the real goal is to make it easier to steal elections.

    There's other dirty tricks… the entire DOJ attorneys firing (for not prosecuting/persecuting voter fraud) in election years…poor form but when you win who cares if you cheat as long as you win….you can cover it up later.

    Why did Ken Blackwell not become gov?? I wasn't here but I could imagine the word got out that he cheated and disenfrachised people in Cuyahoga county…got punished. He of course took one for the team and is probably set for life as far as a job is concerned.

    It isn't a lack of courage, but a lack of knowing what the game is….now we know there are no rules and can plan accordingly. So to win elections it has to be a landslide, and we have to be there with our own people to defend against the forces of voter suppression.

  • modernesquire

    What you can help Dennis is stop lying about Ted Strickland's record. What you can do is drop the hysterical rhethoric like in your comment above when I've had to spend the past month personally correcting you a a number of objectively false posts you've written about Strickland.

    Quit washing your hands from helping John Kasich from becoming Governor, because every time you've told the progressive community not to support Strickland, that's all you've done.

  • modernesquire

    See, Dennis Kucinich's presidential bids.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!