« Bozeman Democratic Senate Debate | Main | Some of the Love and Some of the Hate »

April 19, 2006


Eric Coobs

I agree with most of your analysis.

We'll see what happens during the next month.


I wish just once that you Nader bashers would address one thing: Gore could have had the Nader vote if he had simply taken leadership on any of the multitude of issues Nader put up. Instead, Gore was arrogant - you vote for me as I am, I give you nothing.

Gore beat Gore. God this gets old. Blame your guy. Be a man.


That's kinda humorous, Mark, but I'm pretty certain that Gore voted for himself, so it seems pointless to blame him for beating himself. I've already adressed the Nader thing, dozens of times. Ultimately, Nader has proven himself to be a self-promoting jackass, and his supporters continue to congratulate themselves for helping to elect the very guy who stands against everything that they profess to believe in. Real smart, huh?

"Boy, I sure am glad I voted for Nader! As bad as Bush is for the environment, it could have been worse; holy shit, we could have had Gore ...")

The arrogance that you ascribe to Gore is simply a projection of your own arrogant cover-up for being boneheaded enough to vote in a self-defeating manner. Certainly, it can't be your fault that Bush is in the White House. No, no, it must be Gore.

As tired as you may think you are for having to point out how much smarter you are for voting Nader than the idjits who voted for Gore, I am way over being tired of reading lame illogical defenses for the 98,000 stupid Floridians who still pat themselves on the back for shooting themselves in the foot.

There, is that man enough for you, Mark?


Hey, wait a minute! Ease up, pardner! I admit: I voted for Nader in 2000, too. (Of course, I was in California, so I didn't have to worry about a close race in the state.)

This is one of those arguments where both sides are right. Nader is a self-promoting moron. Gore would have won the election if he had not abandoned the left. (H*ll, Gore would have won the election if he had won his HOME STATE.)

Personally I decided to cast my vote for Nader when Gore and Bush got into a debate on who was the more Christian candidate. *Brrrrr*

Anybody who voted for Nader in a swing state was a moron. Anybody who voted for Nader in a solidly blue or red state was casting a protest vote against the shift right of the Democratic party.


touchstone, you are correct. I'd be willing to bet that both Mark and I are just fraustrated at having the same damned argument for probably the 100th time.

If anything, though, it does claerly highlight how devisive split votes and spoilers can be.


PS - I'm glad my comment sparked a whole new post. I just wanted to point out that your reaction to Morrison was different -- substantively -- than it was to Tester and Richards. The issues and ideas of the other two candidates played a large part in your judgement, whereas your reaction to Morrison was personal.

Not a critique. From your posts, it appears that Morrison really didn't address issues. He talked a lot without saying anything. (I'd love to see a transcript! Was it taped? Anyone have the bandwidth to post the video?)

I'm holding off on my endorsement until I see and hear the candidates myself and get a clear idea of who stands for what. I will say, just based on the few videos and stories I have seen (the typical voter!), I'd say Tester was the more "electable" candidate in terms of charisma and Montana-ness and that he projects forthrightedness in an era of doublespeak and corruption.


I've followed Nader - I have a sense of the man. He is not "self-promoting" and is certainly not a moron. His record of public service outshines that of either Gore or Bush. His runs for presidency opened him up for abuse from the likes of you and those mainstream Democrats who would vote for a Democratic monkey - he has better ways to spend his time.

Nader's strategy was simply this: Use what leverage you have to get what you want. Don't give them anything until they give you something. What's wrong with that? It's standard negotiating strategy. Nader had 5% of the polls, and said to Gore that if he were to support him on certain progressive issues, that 5% would likely vote for him. Gore, being a moderate Republican domestically, a phony environmentally, and a right wing hawk in foreign policy, had nothing to offer him. He wouldn't budge, and it cost him. He lost - Al's bad. Al thought he could ignore Nader. He was wrong.

I'm not bought into the idea that we are much worse off with Bush than we would have been with Gore - keep in mind that Gore was quite hostile towards Iraq during the campaign. Given the opportunity provided by 9/11, would he had behaved differently? I doubt it. Given Clinton's plan, foiled only by the Monica scandal, to privatize Social Security, would Gore have behaved differently? I doubt it. This idea that Gore is some sort of progressive is a self-induced illusion on the part of Democrats. Were he so, he might have influenced Clinton towards us. He did not.

Until the Democrats get beyond the DLC types, they'll not inspire enough of the electorate to reach that fabled 50% of the vote that they haven't seen since 1976.

Matt Singer

I'm a big fan of Gore circa 2006. Along with Mark, I was an ardent Nader supporter in 2000. After the election, Gore found himself, returned to his environmental roots, spoke out against Iraq 2, endorsed single-payer. He started endorsing inconvenient and uncomfortable truths that most in Washington won't.

Pulled a Senator Bullworth on us, if you will.


Just a final word on who caused Gore to lose:

"The Department of Silly Talk is still hearing whining form some Democrats that Ralph Nader made them lose the election. So it may be useful to note that while Nader got only 3% of the vote, exit polls show that the following percentages of various others constituencies voted for Bush: 9% of blacks; 46% of those under 30; 49% of the college educated; 37% of the poor; 39% of working mothers; 11% of Democrats; 34% of union members; 13% of self-described liberals; 25% of gays and lesbians; 15% of Clinton voters in 1996; 25% of those supporting abortion … The Clinton Administration also moved the political center deliberately and consistently to the right, adding weight to conservative arguments over privatization, welfare, and so forth, while making traditional Democratic positions seem oddball and even extremist. This stab in the back of his own party by Clinton led eventually to a contest between a real conservative and a Democrat trying to learn how to become one. The real one won."
Sam Smith


Still, Nader's 2004 run was moronic. What was he thinking?

I wrote a post on Nader recently under the title of "creep": check it out.

Then you can call me an idiot or whatever you like.


Mark, I realize that you have self-decreed Sam's quote to be the "final word", but you and Mr. Smith would be better served in any argument with me about the 2000 election to acknowledge this fact: I do not, nor have I ever, blamed Ralph Nader for Gore's loss. I believe in one person - one vote. Ralph Nader didn't cast 98,000 votes for himself in Florida, thereby damning the nation to the whims of an incompetant. Anyone who payed a modicum of attention in 2000 should have seen that, regardless of how distastful Gore may have appeared, he was infinitely better than a spoiled and petulant brat-child and serial failure.

Keep this in mind while quoting Sam Smith as he hangs a badge of honor on those wise enough to reject politics-as-usual. Those folks, voting as they did, are no different than the republican voters, the we-want-a-cowboy-who-shoot-'em-all-up voter or the hold-me-daddy-I'm-scared voter. The underlying lie, and pressing arrogance, is that at least the people who voted for Bush were duped into thinking he was a capable and compassionate conservative. There isn't a damn thing conservative about that man, and many of us knew that for a blatant fact. All the Floridian Nader voters have is the hollow message that they voted for a better America. Every time I look at the White House, I say "'Got your better 'Merica right heah!"

Ralph Nader didn't take America one giant leap towards a failed empire; George Bush did. And I hope you'll forgive me if I hold a softly burning antagonism towards those who would arrogantly defend the nobility of those who helped him do it.


You've still got a ways to go to convince me that we're worse off under Bush than Gore. That's the point you avoid. You presume ... that's all.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Read This!

Friends like Family

Blog powered by Typepad