Seriously, get over Nader
|
|
Ralph Nader is not responsible for the last 7 1/2 years of the Bush monarchy. Responsibility lies squarely in the laps of Congressional Democrats who stood with Gore in not wanting to "divide" America by forcing a vote recount in 2000. Responsibility also lies with the Democratic leadership of the past 3 1/2 years (since the 2004 elections, when the war was becoming unpopular) for failing to give the Republicans a choice on what they can call themselves: idiots or traitors.
This is what they should have said: "There are obviously no weapons in Iraq and there never were. It's obvious that the Republicans pushed for this war harder than anyone even though they had direct access to the faulty intelligence when we didn't. Are they idiots, or are they traitors? I don't know, but they sure don't belong in government."
On a side note, that's exactly the kind of claim the Democrats should be making now, too.
Nader had so little to do with Republican victories that he's not even worth talking about. Aside from that, it's getting old to hear Dems whine about the presence of this third-party-candidate or that one. There is always going to be that third party to worry about, so if [enter election year here] isn't a "good time" for them to run, then when will be?
This is what they should have said: "There are obviously no weapons in Iraq and there never were. It's obvious that the Republicans pushed for this war harder than anyone even though they had direct access to the faulty intelligence when we didn't. Are they idiots, or are they traitors? I don't know, but they sure don't belong in government."
On a side note, that's exactly the kind of claim the Democrats should be making now, too.
Nader had so little to do with Republican victories that he's not even worth talking about. Aside from that, it's getting old to hear Dems whine about the presence of this third-party-candidate or that one. There is always going to be that third party to worry about, so if [enter election year here] isn't a "good time" for them to run, then when will be?
To reuse another posters description, Nader has a brilliant mind, and I think he has always had the American consumer first and foremost!
Of course, I'm biased.....LOL
If the New England Patriots used this blame-Nader logic to explain their Super Bowl loss, they'd blame Green Bay for not eliminating the NY Giants. Instead, they've accepted the fact that they were outplayed and lost.
I agree with you ibtrippen, the problem wasn't caused by Nader.
Bush is a joke both here and abroad. And his side kick Cheney is another one.
Soon we will be rid of the Bush dynasty. Hopefully, GW will go back to Crawford and drink himself into an oblivion.
Gore lost that election. Nobody helped him lose.
Nader isn't responsible for the last 7 1/2 years, but I don't think you can ignore his appearance in the 2000 election. It definitely didn't help Al Gore.
Third parties have always been taking away votes from the main parties. It happened to the Republicans in 1912, which was why Woodrow Wilson was elected. I really think that the effect of third parties, however small, does have big consequences for whatever party they take votes away from.
The answer to your question about when it'll be a good year for a third party to run sounds like a cop-out, but it isn't: it'll be a good a year for third parties when America doesn't have a two party system.
The way to accomplish that is not what Ralph Nader is doing. We need someone who knows how to campaign harder than any other candidate because a third party doesn't have the same support that the other two parties do. We need a candidate who is stronger than Ralph Nader. We need someone who does more than just announce their candidacy and then sit on the periphrials of the election and take the votes that come floating out there. We need a candidate that is enough of an icon that they can mainstream third parties, and Ralph Nader is too much of an outsider.
I know that again I run into a Catch 22: How can a third party rally behind an icon when icons are created by established parties?
I can't sit here all day. I just want you to know that I sympathize with third parties, and I really wish that they'd work (since I've always dreamed of an American Socialist Party)...but the sad fact is that they face too many obstacles and in the end, they end up taking away votes from the lesser evil that has more of a chance of winning than them.
Also, the time you mentioned--when the USA will no longer have the two-party system--will not likely come while we have the current constitution.
Our current constitution gives the president so much power that the only reliable way to check that power is to have Congress unify against him/her. Such a unification would require a single party to control congress, so any functioning three- or four-party system would immediately become "the party that controls the presidency versus everyone else." In short, it would quickly revert into the two party system we've had for most of our history.
The question about when it would be a good time for a third party to run is not a cop out because third parties keep the other two on the ball in the sense that they threaten to absorb substantial numbers of voters from the major parties if major party candidates aren't responsive enough to the people.
Furthermore, Gore could have had the Florida vote recounted if he hadn't have told Democratic senators categorically not to demand a recount (ask your senators about it, I asked Boxer and Feinstein). My point is only that, although Nader is a nuisance, Democrats should be able to win elections with him in or out of the race.