BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Merritt
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 11:28 AM

Here we go again blaming Nader for the FL 2000 debacle and therefore the national 2000 outcome. Apologies for a bit o' copy & paste from another similar thread:

>>>According to Susan MacManus, a political scientist at the University of South Florida, exit polls from the 2000 presidential election in Florida reveal that when Nader voters were asked who they would've voted for if Nader had >not< run and they were in a straight Bush vs. Gore contest, the responses were "split right down the middle." So the number of Nader votes going to Gore and to Bush would've been the same. (These are not the notorious VNS polls that resulted in inaccurate early projections.)

Nader received 96,837 votes in Florida in 2000. So, as an exercise in electoral accuracy, if we shoot one of the Nader voters, we can give 48,418 votes each to the two front-runners. Working from the final recount numbers in the Fla. Race, this would give Bush a total 2,597,594 votes. Gore would claim total votes of 2,955, 869.

So Nader and some Greens may hope to be spoilers, but the actual numbers don't support the constant (and continuing) repetition by Democrats and others that this is what happened in Florida in 2000.

But that's not all. Florida 2000 exit polls also tell us that 256,274 Democrats voted for Bush, and 167,598 Republicans voted for Gore. Letting the two lead candidates keep "their" Nader votes, if we assume for a moment that all Bush's Dem votes go to Gore & all Gore's GOP votes go to George II we can adjust the vote totals:

Gore = 3,212,143
Bush = 3,125,192

In other words, with enough Democrats pulling the lever for him, old Al mighta won the day. But, please, ignore all of this. It's much easier to blame the Nader and (depending on wind direction) the Green Party.

Pre-election voter roll purges, post-election hype and Supreme Court action IMO were the biggest factors involved in rigging the Florida election to produce the guy now in the White House.<<<<

Numbers are interesting. Here in Wisconsin in 2000, 2/3 of Nader voters didn't vote at all in 1996. Self-identified Democrats accounted for only 27% of his WI votes.

I agree with those pushing here for preferential or instant run-off voting. This is a more productive than casting Nader as Vader.

- Merritt

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 08:54 AM

And the propaganda that Nader is who defeated Gore continues. Gore won the popular vote. Bush won the electoral college after intervention from the Supreme Court to stop the vote recount in Florida, where there was a good amount of voter fraud.

The tally of the recount votes in Florida shows that even if Nader had withdrawn from the race, Gore wouldn't have won.

Yet the mainstream Democrats keep blaming Nader for Gore being a shit candidate, and for the Florida recount debacle.

It's a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: RWilhelm
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 11:56 PM

The reason Nader did not elect Bush is that, even in Florida, anyone who voted for Nader or any other third party candidiate did so because they could not stomach the mainstream candidates. Those votes would not have gone to Gore, they would have stayed home. I have voted in six presidential elections and I have never voted for a Republican or a Democrat. I never will.

As the Fugs said, "Was George Washington the lesser of two evils?"

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: toadfrog
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 10:53 PM

I object to you guys' belittling remarks about Gus Hall. Gus Hall was a man of substance. When he debated, he often made more sense than either major party candidate. Nader can't come within a mile of Gus Hall.

Among other things, Gus Hall never said a lot of b... s... about how he was going to take all the Republican votes away from Nixon or Reagan.      If Nader sincerely believes he is going to win the Republicans over he'll stick to campaigning in places like Texas and Utah. Fat chance!

Hey McGrath, what is it about our voting system works that would keep Nader from helping elect Bush this time? I want to hear about that; it's a complete new one on me. Ralph sure did get Bush elected last time!   Ralph Nader is the lovely guy that gave the war in Iraq. Maybe he will get us more of the same. Is that what you want? Is it really worth all that bloodshed, just so Brit intellectuals can take the moral high ground and lecture us Yanks about what yahoos we are?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 08:38 PM

Guest: Is that not similar to the events in Florida (and other places) in 2000?
         Would that Nader would retire with dignity and not create the same problem that he created last time.   My own feeling is that a vote for Nader is a vote for Narcisism. He could leave the stage with dignity and not as, some wag said recently "...stick to look at auto's rear ends and seat belts".
          Personally, I have never felt as strongly about an election as this one. Provided there is no coup I would hope that W is gone after this one---think of how we have rolled back time in his brief tenure---Social Security, Economy, Defense, and world opinion.
          Sadly, after 9-11 we had the moment when all civilized peoples could unite and empathize. Blown away---by W's own doing.
         Now the commission is finally going to interview him--with his VP. Think about that. When ever did a sitting Pres. need his VP to be there---or as some wag said recently---"...when W speaks will Cheney be drinking water"? Or, as I say---will we see Cheney move his lips?
          So--back to Nader. For once he should put his vanity aside for the greater good and those who would vote for him should realize that once again they are wasting a vote that might keep this administration afloat.

Bill Hahn


PS--why do we allow GUEST signatures? Makes one think about asking---who was that masked man---OH he was a guest. Anonymity leads to "crank" notes and notes by people to afraid of ashamed of their comments.   If one believes something---defend it and announce yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 07:58 PM

According to the latest Minnesota Poll just released today, Kerry is 12 points ahead of Bush statewide. The poll, conducted last week, showed Kerry leading Bush, 50 percent to 38 percent. Nader had 2 percent. Kerry led Bush in the seven-county metropolitan region, 54 percent to 35 percent. In the rest of the state, Kerry led 47 percent to 41 percent.

Minnesota is being peddled to the national media as a battleground state, though I'm not really sure why. The national vote here is nearly always Democrat by a healthy margin. There have been exceptions over the years, with Reagan for instance. But for the most part, this state is still Democrat by a pretty good margin. We just haven't had any decent state and national offices filled by decent Democrats, exept Wellstone, since Perpich left office.

There is a real dearth of decent Democrats to run for state and national office here, but I don't think that translates to the state going Republican, despite our recent run of Republican governors (interrupted by Ventura, and independent). That isn't because the state is THAT much more Republican, it is because the Democrats aren't running candidates as strong as the Republican candidates.

That said, I'm not too worried about Kerry being able to carry Minnesota, so I'm voting for Nader to help build and keep alive the progressive populist grassroots movement in this state, regardless of party or political affiliation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 02:42 PM

What would solve the problem, of course, would be preferential voting. With preferential voting, you rank the candidates in order of your preference. That way, you can rank, say, #1 Nader, #2 Kucinich, #3 Edwards, #4 Kerry. Then if it becomes obvious that Nader isn't getting enough votes, your vote switches to Kucinich. If Kucinich isn't making it, it moves to Edwards, then on to Kerry if Kerry is actually getting the most votes. With this kind of system, you can vote for whoever you really want without fear that your vote will be "wasted" if your candidate's chances are really slim. Under the present system, for all practical purposes you are wasting your vote, no matter how idealistic and superior it may make you feel.   

Preferential voting has the additional advantage that if, say, Kucinich winds up number two behind Kerry, then Kerry had better pay some attention to Kucinich's platform, because he now knows that a lot of people were behind it, and if he wants to be re-elected, he'd better take it seriously. Even if your favorite candidate doesn't win, your real preferences are made known to the one who does.

There are rumblings in a few states to bring preferential voting about. But if the two major parties have their way, it'll be a cold day in Hell before that ever happens. It will probably take a grass roots movement, but it can be done. But obviously not by November, unfortunately.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 01:57 PM

Remember, in most parts your country there is no real possibility of Nader doing any damage at all to the chances of removing Bush. Your voting system just doesn't work that way.

And for people living in the few states where it could make any difference - such as Florida last time - who would like to register a vote for Nader, but are scared that might help Bush to survive, all they need to do is pair up with someone in another part of the country and swap votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST,03 Apr 04 - 11:56 AM
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 01:21 PM

A friend of mine was Nader's running mate, Winona LaDuke. She is from Minnesota, knows him very well, and says essentially what Todd Purdum of the NY Times said about Nader on Washington Week on Friday night. That he has a great sense of humor, that he is brilliant, he isn't an egomaniac at all, but is a truly unique individual. She also said he is quite humble for a lawyer. ;-)

Winona has remained mum about Nader's run this year so far, and I haven't spoken with her in over a year (she lives in northern MN and travels a lot). But she has nothing but wonderful things to say about Nader. So I guess I'll go with the opinion of someone who knows him well that I know personally, rather than go by what someone on the internet who may well have an ax to grind, and who doesn't appear to have known Nader at all in recent years, says about him.

I really don't think anyone can say that Nader is irrelevant. The NY Times doesn't interview irrelevant presidential candidates. To try and compare Nader to Gus Hall, is just plain silly, or the person making the comparison is attempting to smear Nader through guilt by association.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 07:44 AM

GO Nader, Your the one Buddy Don't let some sick liberal pig tell you a thing .we're better off 1000 times better off without Kerry .
mindless Kerry Friend of Terror and lie's
There is Nothing Wrong with Bush ...so what if he hasn't had a Whore in the White House so what if he don't mess around on his wife.
when liberal's say Bush lie's The're lieing..Clinton Lies
Please i know and you schould know Liberal's can't tell whats true
or right it has something to do with Hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: LadyJean
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 10:25 PM

Why does Nader want to be Gus Hall?

Hall was the Communist party's perrenial candidate for president. I'm sure someone, somewhere took him seriously. But most people saw him as a kind of pathetic joke.

Pat Paulsen, the commedian made a career out of running for president. Nobody took him seriously either.

Nader is kidding himself if he thinks he'll attract disaffected Republicans. They'll go Libertarian. If he attacts enough voters be taken seriously, he'll also hand George w a second term. If he doesn't he'll be a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 09:42 PM

What are his goals, do you think, Dick? It seems to me that if he were serious about wanting to govern this country he would have long since named some people, or at least specified some characteristics of the people, that he wants in his cabinet as well as those he wants working alongside him. Is he one of those people who gets his kicks out of being in the news, being talked about, feared for what impact he may have?

If Ralph Nader again affects the election, as far as I'm concerned he's history. And bad history, at that.

Recently, in Oregon I was in the backseat of a car listening to a man in the front seat bemoaning the status of Christianity in this country. I'm sure it doesn't occur to him that if he got his wishes, the US would be Iran with a different name.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 04:43 PM

Having worked more-or-less closely with Mr. Nader--he was on the board of Consumers Union when I was an engineer then-- I can only say that he's a dedicated, sincere monomaniac, who's willing to destroy anything to further his personal goals, a few of which are praiseworthy and most of which are plain nuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 11:59 AM

Sorry, I meant to mention for the non-registered, Nader said:

"He has asked for a meeting with Mr. Kerry next month to make his case that he can offer fresh ideas "field-tested by a second front," and Kerry aides say a session is being arranged."

Subject: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 11:56 AM

I love this man!

There is a great interview in the NY Times with Ralph Nader (I heard about it last night on Washington Week from the writer who interviewed him). It's about damn time somebody did a legitimate interview with Nader like this!

Here is the link, for those of you who are registered:

Reason to Run? Nader Argues He Has Plenty

For those of you who aren't registered, here is quick excerpt of the beginning of the article:

"By TODD S. PURDUM

Published: March 31, 2004


WASHINGTON, March 30 — Ralph Nader knows all the arguments against him. He can recite, word for importuning word, the letters from old friends urging him not to run for president — "all individually written, all stunningly similar" — and he does so with the theatrical relish of a man whose public life has been one long, unyielding argument with the world.

"Here's how it started," he said, his soft voice taking on mock oratorical tones over dinner with a group of aides in Charlotte, N.C., last week: "For years, I've thought of you as one of our heroes." He rolled his eyes. "The achievements you've attained are monumental, in consumer, environmental, etc., etc." He paused for effect. "But this time, I must express my profound disappointment at indications that you are going to run."

"And the more I got of these," Mr. Nader said, "the more I realized that we are confronting a virus, a liberal virus. And the characteristic of a virus is when it takes hold of the individual, it's the same virus, individual letters all written in uncannily the same sequence. Here's another characteristic of the virus: Not one I can recall ever said, 'What are your arguments for running?' "

So ask him already. He is bursting with answers.

No, he says, he is neither a nut nor a narcissist. Yes, he agrees with his sharpest Democratic critics that defeating President Bush is essential. In the end, he believes, out-of-power Democrats will rally around John Kerry, and Mr. Nader will take votes from disaffected Republicans and independents. He is running as an independent, but might accept the endorsement of the Green Party, which nominated him four years ago, though not if doing so means refraining from campaigning in swing states, as some in the party insist."