portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government selection 2004

You Nader Voters Should Have Voted For Gore!!!!

And you'd better vote Democrat this time, or else! I've never felt this jilted in my life! I'm choking on my own rage!!!!!
Nader's Nadir?
Not a Chance

By JOSH FRANK

Watch out for the Democrat backlash, Ralph Nader is running for President as an Independent. Of course most agree Nader's run will not accrue nearly as many votes as his 2000 tally. Nonetheless these weak-kneed liberals are fearful of their deranged "spoiler" scenario.

Hollow political observers like The Nation's Eric "I have no spine" Alterman, will surely bark a shrill (read kick-me dog) denouncement of Nader's bid -- the whole while failing to articulate a coherent strategy for challenging the corporate entrenched Democrats as they genuflect at the feet of Republicans' every whim.

And if you plan on backing Nader you better sport a flak jacket, for there is a shotgun shell of scare tactics about to blast your way. As if Bush alone has placed our heads in a collective noose. Don't be fooled, Bush's loyal Democratic henchman have been at his side the whole while.

The 2002 congressional elections should have been a wake-up call for the bewildered Democrats, as their feeble opposition cost them control of the Senate. One month prior to that November election the Dems caved and voted in support of Bush's Iraq War Resolution. This after the Dems' overwhelming endorsement of Attorney General Ashcroft's Patriot Act, with Russ Feingold's sole dissenting vote in the Senate. But don't forget it was trusty Feingold who helped Ashcroft achieve his royal fervor in the first place. Thanks again for one that Russ.

Yes, the Democrats also supported the smart-bombing of Afghanistan. And no they didn't go after Bush for his friendly ties to Kenny Boy Lay of Enron, even though Bush flew around on the crook's private jet campaigning in 2000. How could they? They too pandered to Enron and ol' Kenny Boy's bank roll. Nor did the Democrats question Bush's forest plan, which was mirrored after language Democratic Senator Tom Daschle slipped into a bill in the summer of 2002.

Daschle's legal jargon, backed by the Sierra Club and other Big Green traitors, allowed logging on First American's holy land in the Black Hills of South Dakota, without having to abide by environmental restraints or environmental lawsuits. But we better blame those darn Naderites for that one. Never mind more Democrats voted for Bush in Florida than Ralph Nader, it is still that ego driven Nader's fault, damit!

How about the Supreme Court? Bush will surely shift the court if he is allowed to appoint a judge in the next four years, right? Don't fret, that is just another Democratic scare tactic. Alexander Cockburn summed it up best in an article he penned in July of 2000:

"A Democrat in the White House is no guarantee of a liberal on the Court. Truman put up four, all of them awful. By contrast, Eisenhower nominated the great liberal William Brennan, and Gerald Ford picked John Stevens, the court's current liberal champion, and indeed, the only justice to rule against two oil companies in one of the recent batches of Supreme Court decisions. Nixon's nominee, Harold Blackmun, wrote the Roe v. Wade decision. Twenty years later, Bush Sr.'s nominee, Souter, wrote the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision in 1992 reaffirming the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade, and arguing that "choice" was now installed in the national culture. The Court echoed that view in its recent upholding of the Miranda rule."

Sure Gloria Steinem will be bussed around swing states dispensing her panic that those back alley abortions will surely return if Bush isn't dethroned next November. But how will John Kerry, who is of late rhetorically attacking free-trade, enforce tougher worker rights abroad while teenage girls continue to sew our Gap clothes and Nike sneakers for pennies a day? He won't, because Kerry is no feminist or human rights champion. In fact Bush has done more to upset the free-trade community than any Democrat is recent history. Scary thought indeed. So anyway back to Ralph.

Nader is now publicly calling for the impeachment of the President. It is a reasonable request. Bush has led America into a war based on disinformation and lies. The Republicans attacked Clinton for a cigar and an intern, but the Democrats won't go after Bush for misleading Americans into war. Why? It's simple; the Democrats on the whole supported the illegal invasion, which was piggybacked on the Clinton and Gore Iraq Liberation Act signed back in 1998.

And now we have Senator John "I committed war crimes" Kerry leading in polls across the land. However, the Skull and Bones blood brother of George W. Bush isn't offering us any solid alternative to politics as usual. It would be nice if he were. But Kerry won't repeal Bush's Tax Cuts for the rich, pull out US troops in Iraq, or sign the Kyoto agreement. In fact prior to the Iraq debacle Kerry professed, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to ... defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." What a leader Kerry, isn't.

So as the "liberal intelligentsia" retreats back into empire defense mode, don't be afraid to stand up in opposition. If it means supporting a third party candidate like Nader, so be it. The chattering classes will surely scream that this is Nader's nadir. But it isn't. It's the Democrats' and all those who follow the "Anybody But Bush" mantra blindly. You won't be a "spolier," the rotten Democrats already have that one covered.

Josh Frank can be reached at:  frank_joshua@hotmail.com

homepage: homepage: http://www.counterpunch.org/frank02232004.html

republicans stole more votes from democrats than greens in 2000 23.Feb.2004 11:56

GRINGO STARS

13% of Florida's democrats voted for Bush.
8% of Florida's republicans voted for Gore.
Of those who voted for Clinton in 1996, 16% voted for Bush in 2000.
Of those who voted for Clinton in 1996, only 1% voted for Nader in 2000.
Of those who voted for Dole in 1996, only 4% voted for Gore in 2000.
Of those who voted for Dole in 1996, only 1% voted for Nader in 2000.
Of those who voted for Perot in 1996, 10% voted for Nader in 2000.

As someone named "p.s." pointed out in another thread, it was DEMOCRATS, not greens, that gave the presidency to Bush.

 http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=FL

ewwwww 23.Feb.2004 12:50

Disgusted

The slimy spineless democrats have spent far more time the past two weeks attacking Nader, than they have Bush. Fucking Idiots! Fucking Useless Idiots!!!

There are piles of things to go after Bush on.

What do the democrats do? Waste their fucking time on Nader. They are worthless, spineless, sniveling cowards who only have the 'courage' to go after a basically honest man who is trying to do something positive.

The democratic party is corrupt beyond redemption. The world would be a better place if the democratic party leadership just disappeared.

I'm voting for Nader! 23.Feb.2004 13:03

Adammonte9000 adammonte9000@aol.com

I'm voting for Nader, simple as that (unless he drops out which he says he might do). It's my patriotic duty to vote for who I think is the best candidate, and that's Nader. Want Bush out? Tell Kerry to drop out (or Edwards if he's the nominee). He'll steal votes from Nader and spoil the election like Al Gore did last time!

You know 23.Feb.2004 13:08

I'm really glad

that some "progressives" are still willing to back nader. I mean the rally cry has been a demand for real change, but when a candidate who actually demands change comes along, some preferre to codemn him instead of supoert him/ it just doesn't make since ... I'm serious what the hell is wrong with those on the left who would rather support the duopoly? i think the ultimate protest would be a vote for a real progressive with out fear. If the left could truly weeken the democratic party by voting third that'd be great, then progressives could take their place. Please people vote for the best available candidate, not some corporate picked stooge. We need to send to send a clear message that we aren't going settle for mediocrity. Embrace the best choice not the one that has been picked for you. Seriously if this ruins the democratic party so be it.

The real spoilers 23.Feb.2004 13:42

pp

The real spoilers of the 2000 election were the 62% of registered voters who didn't bother to get off their asses and vote.

and furthermore 23.Feb.2004 14:11

I'm REALLY REALLY glad

"Seriously if this ruins the democratic party so be it."

--the great thing is, it WON'T !

if anything it should CHALLENGE and HELP the Democrats to create a *real progressive agenda* (though who knows if they actually will),

plus it'll be great to see Ralph debate Kerry/Edwards and Bu$hit on national TV

How can you say that? 23.Feb.2004 14:23

election fraud protestor

The 62% who didn't get off their buts and vote know either cognitively or intuitively that the vote counters decide the outcome. They have tired of the charade and are content to watch the election like a ball game passively in front of their sets or if not mind controlled by the media they are trying to educate others about the election fraud. Remember Bev Harris at www.blackboxvoting.com she lays it all out meticulously in her new online book.

Nader is working for the republicans. 23.Feb.2004 15:53

Liberty 4 Sale

To help the democrats loose another election.

Why do you think he has waited until now to speak out about bush.
They know that bush is loosing the fight for truth in politics and they know that the democracts are on the run to win.

If Nader belived that money and politics is the problem he would be running for congress to change things.

Remember people
Smoke and mirriors is always at work.
24/7
365.242199 days a year.

ralph makes interesting points 23.Feb.2004 16:07

hmmmm...

to listen to him, ralph seems to think it is bush he will be taking votes from, by giving republican voters disgusted with bush (i've always suspected they exist) an alternative to voting for the democratic candidate. given all the lovely things even non-republicans around here have to say about the dems, (and that's pretty much true here also, being a dem for long enough to vote for dk in the primary, is about all I can stand to be one), maybe ralph has a point- how can republicans stand to vote democrat to beat bush if many democrats can barely stand to?

and while I seem to remember a certain mr. nader being physically removed from the debates last go-round, a certain then-vice-president doing seemingly no more to protest this than the snake he debated, i think it may be very true that nader is in a better position to make criticism of bush than the democrats who we're so busy declaring spineless, around here.

in fact, that's all I really can expect out of his running is to put a few dents in bush's shiny "Crusader" armor during the proceedings, but that is something.

it's unfortunate that the dems are seizing the occasion as a chance to make themselves look even worse by whacking at him when he really could be an ally.

Misleading headline 23.Feb.2004 16:46

Bison Boy

What the heck is the deal with that headline and summary? It runs directly counter to the content of the article. It's not a very nice tactic. Grr.

At any rate, an Oregon vote for Nader in 2000 gave nothing to Mr. Bush, and took little from Mr. Gore. As you may or may not recall, Gore won Oregon by a narrow margin.

However, it was a pretty near thing. Had Florida been certified for Gore, and Oregon gone for Bush, Bush would have won. As that night wore on, when it appeared that Florida was for Gore and Oregon undecided, I seriously wondered if my vote for Nader had given Bush the White House. As it happens, of course, that painful burden rests not on Nader voters in Oregon, but on some folks in Florida.

Both major parties consider Oregon a swing state this year. If you consider voting for Nader this year, bear in mind that it is entirely possible that *your* vote will make the difference. I'm not saying you should not vote for Ralph, but for pity's sake don't underestimate the stakes. Think carefully, and do what you think is right.

(And if you aren't yet registered to vote, go here and sign up:  http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/votreg/vreg.htm. If you're eligible but don't vote, you've no standing to bitch about results you don't like.)

Nader will need our support 23.Feb.2004 17:21

green1

It's encouraging to read these posts and see all the support for Ralph Nader. He will take a beating as Josh has pointed out in his article, and therefore it is important for those of us who support him to be there for him, and for our country. As Ralph said in his announcement, he is running to get the issues out there, as no other candidate (most likely Kerry) will do it. He will be an alternative for the moderate Republicans and hopefully an incentive for change for the Democrats. Though of course so far we haven't seen too much of that. I also know that the voting system is fraught with fraudulent vote scams, which saddens me to think my vote for Nader may not count. I have always wondered for instance if he really got the 15% from 2000. But his candidacy is still vital to give us a clear progressive voice and an alternative to the corporately owned and operated government.

None of this matters of the democrats wimp out again 23.Feb.2004 17:22

GRINGO STARS

hey democrats! In 20/20 hindsight, we now know that if Gore had the guts to ask for a recount, he would have won the presidency in 2000. If course, he knuckled under and essentially GAVE the presidency to Bush. That can not be blamed on Nader. i am still baffled at Gore's extreme weakness. If the democrats spent half the time they do whining about Nader taking Bush to task, they would be seen as a party with courage. Instead, they back Bush's programs and wars and whine about how, somehow, no one sees them as leaders. Instead of filing behind Bush in a line, maybe they could develop a real alternative that isn't a cosmetic change away from Bush's platform. Just a thought.

I almost didn't vote for Nader 23.Feb.2004 18:11

Thank you for bringing me back to earth

Just when you think that Nader is just a spoiler, he probably is the only one who might use the Executive Privilege to do good.

It could be worse, this could be reality instead of just a dream.

Hey. Gringo 23.Feb.2004 18:32

bt

>> hey democrats! In 20/20 hindsight, we now know that if Gore had the guts to ask for a recount, he would have won the presidency in 2000.

Where were you for those 30+ days in which Gore asked, all the way to the Supreme Court, for a recount?

tug of war 23.Feb.2004 18:42

Glex

Imagine a tug of war. One side the Repubs the other the Dems. Now imagine some of the Dems side decide they dont like the EXACT direction the Dems are pulling so they get together and start pulling obliquely, which throws the Dems off and the Repubs gain the advantage and win. Lesson learned - Lets all pull together.
The longer Bush stays in the more forests and wildlife species we will lose.

BUSH AND KERYY ARE BOTH EVIL 23.Feb.2004 19:16

GOD

BOTH bush and kerry are in skull and bones a elitist group of satanist.
so why would votin for kerry change anything if there both playin for the same team?

Bottom line 23.Feb.2004 20:19

jlii

If Gore had not conceded to Bush the issue of how the Supremes can not appoint a king could have been raised. It was Al Gore who win the popular vote and the Electoral College (when all the votes were counted). Running for office in America is a rich man's sport that is why so many voted for Ralph Nader he said something at least.

You're right the Green Party with its 5% national presence is deciding the elections and if the Democrats don't wise up we will punish the country with Bush again. There won't be much left by 2008. Just that much nearer the revolution, can you dig!

Gore did not ask for a full recount: big mistake 23.Feb.2004 22:03

Victor Victoria

Actually, Gore never asked for a full recount. He only asked for a small, partial recount, limited to the "hanging chad" counties (Miami-Dade). Big mistake. It turns out that if he had concentrated his fire on some of the upstate, heavily minority counties where a lot of the disenfranchisement had taken place, the stink would have reached high heaven.

I wish 23.Feb.2004 22:10

Bear

What I'd really like to see....would be for some right-wing fundamentalist dumbass like Buchanan, Robertson or Falwell to enter the race. They could take votes away from Bu$h!

Eh? 23.Feb.2004 22:13

Puekaw

"The longer Bush stays in the more forests and wildlife species we will lose."

What the hell??? It was Senator Ron Wyden a DEMOCRAT, who sponsored the falsely named "Healthy Forest Intiative" It is Wyden, a DEMOCRAT, who received the largest amount of bribe money from Timber interests of any Senator. It is Wyden, a DEMOCRAT, who blocked efforts to amend the bill and make it less destructive.

Open your eyes and start seeing the truth. The democratic party will fuck you over every time.

You Gore voters should have voted for Nader 23.Feb.2004 22:49

duh

Quite obviously, otherwise George Bush wouldn't be president right now.

So, do like me this time and vote for Nader.


Later.