Just give Ralph the keys to a gassed up Corvair and tell him to visit his relatives in Montana or something.

That'd be a waste of a perfectly good Corvair.

"He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically, he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

I think what Nader said is terrible and tasteless crap, but I'll go out on a limb and say there is some truth to it. A lot of white people could care less about black issues. If Obama was in the ghettos and focusing more on black issues and talking about black power and empowerment zones a lot of white people would dismiss him.

He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful.

Maybe Ralph is trying to appeal to young, interesting people's guilt about old, boring people.

Does Nader think Obama doesn't care about black issues, or that he does but is trying to "talk white" to win the Presidency, at which point he'll turn around and change things? What's funny is that I think there are more people scared of the latter than of the former.

Oh for fuck's sake. Why do people insist on giving him the publicity he so desperately craves? Don't get me wrong; I used to hold Mr. Nader in very high regard. These days, he's just an embarrassment.

I feel old.

I remember when Nader was relevant.

Eight-year-olds were alive when Nader was relevant.

Anyway, I think they both make good points.

If Nader had one ounce of contrition about the damage, whether it was inadvertent or not, that he helped the Republicans cause in 2000, I'd be more interested in listening to him. I realize that Democrats are far from perfect and I'm pretty upset by the whole FISA thing this week myself, but they really are different than Republicans and I hate that he helped spread the idea that there were no differences between them.

The differences: Republicans want to destroy the country from the top down, while the Democrats want to destroy it from the bottom up. Reverse the roles every 15 months or so.

I don't think Nader ever made that much of an impact. IMO, he electrified a group of people who probably wouldn't have voted otherwise, or at least would have, most likely, voted for another independent/third-party candidate.

Thank you all for that. All my hatred is confirmed. You're awesome.

One of my favourite bloggers had a response to that whole "talking white" thing that pretty much sums up my feelings on it.

Nader did some good things in the 60's has not been relevant since the 70's. The ultimate in attention whores. Please go away dude.

Republicans want to destroy the country from the top down, while the Democrats want to destroy it from the bottom up.

But, but... That doesn't even mean anything.

*sputters*

I don't think it was intended to, pup. Ardiril just wants to get a rise out of someone.

Oh yeah? Tell that to this puppy.
≡ Click to see image ≡

My rise is now safely in the closet. Thanks for the warning, bmarkey.

Also, I want that Lego dog. Even if it does look like a poodle.

Nader haters can suck my just-as-black-as-Barack balls. Ad hominem attacks do not address the issues, nor do they flatter your unflinchingly, pre-packaged, party-line, unexamined minds.

that he helped the Republicans' cause in 2000

This chestnut needs to die. Politics is not an either-or proposition. You are not "with us or agin us". That is the exact black-and-white polarizing thinking that the current administration espouses. Ralph Nader did not lose the election for Al Gore. Al Gore lost the election for Al Gore.

Both the democratic and republican parties are fucked. The existing power structure in this country has crystallized, and it needs to change. Take a look back at American electoral history. It was not always Democrat/Republican. In fact, they started off as one party (Jefferson was a Democratic Republican). Oddly enough, they have come back to the same point. But that's a good thing; we're headed for a change. We have republican governors opposing offshore drilling and supporting gay marriage (Schwartzenegger). So maybe people will start to see that party lines are unnecessary, confining, and fucking arbitrary anyway.

Vote for the person you think is best for the job. Do not vote party lines, because that's pure bullshit. You have congresspeople taking impeachment "off the table" because they're all on the same side. It is them vs. you. They have the power, you don't. That needs to change. An electorate should be fucking SCARED of the people they represent. We are their bosses. We do not have to vote how they tell us to.

You are a fucking hypocritical drone. Cut that shit out. Wake the fuck up and start thinking about things. Do not react from your gut. You have fucking thumbs, for crissakes. At least act like you're evolved, rather than parroting the same bullshit you think will win you favor with your peers. If your peers want to regurgitate the same bullshit they're being fed, then tell them to go fuck themselves. You can get new ones.

Whatever. You're not listening/reading. Whether you admit you're religious or not, your "heresy" filter has gone up and you've blocked out what I have to say. That's fine. Enjoy the world you made. But I'm going down fighting. I will not sleep.

I love you guys. I love MetaChat. But sometimes, it's hard for me to respect you. That's all I'm saying, bottom line.

I am just going to step in here and make the observation that Nader himself has been leveraging a kind of "hippie guilt" for decades, paving the way for so many people* to aspire to political self-righteousness by playing the "Don't blame me, I voted for Nader" card.

But that may sound too much like an ad hominem attack.

You know, kind of like pointing at an African-American candidate and accusing him of passing, instead of actually addressing his platform.

* - 2,883,105 in 2000. 463,653 in 2004.

Just to clarify: the folks who voted for Nader in 2000? If they'd wanted Al Gore for president, they'd have voted for Al Gore.

I totally agree that this is not much of a policy analysis from Nader, either. But then, I doubt the media is really interested in giving his actual platform (if there is one; I'm not a Nader supporter so I don't know) airtime; this is all about cheap controversy. I did see him on the Daily Show, though, which probably is the best exposure he'll ever get.

My point is still that claiming Nader ruined the election is disgusting, repugnant, and unbecoming. Also, childish.

I would be surprised to find that bunnies here are planning to vote for Obama because they always vote "party line". I mean, do you really think that? Given all the threads here - good and bad - about Obama and other candidates? Maybe I'm wrong. But I know for myself, I research every candidate on the ballot, including local elections, and have no qualms crossing "party lines" to vote for the best candidate. (Not that I have a party line to cross - I'm not registered for any specific party.) In the last national election cycle, my ballot had boxes checked for Democrats, Independents, Greens, and yes, Republicans. (Plus Chicago has this ridiculous judge retention ballot that's like 50 judges long and really annoying. Yes, I research them too.)

I find the implication that my vote for Obama will be "parroting," "regurgitating," and "hypocritical" insulting. How does one tell if support for Obama is based on Dem party sheep mentality or a thorough examination of the candidates? A vote is a vote, and they look the same either way.

I don't think Nader ruined the election in 2000. Hell, I voted for him (I lived in Texas at the time.) I think Bush stole the election in 2000, but he wouldn't have been able to do so if Democrats could have put it away more decisively.

Vote for the person you think is best for the job. Do not vote party lines, because that's pure bullshit.

Personally, I think voting for people is bullshit. "Best for the job", what does that mean? It's so vague. What are all these people who are voting for Obama as Messiah going to do when he makes a mistake? People will let you down- nobody is perfect, nobody is going to keep all their promises. I've accepted that. I prefer to vote for ideas- to vote for the party that best supports my ideas on what government should look like.

You people are out of your minds. Straight party-line, all the way down!

I don't think I've ever seen a horse that high. Do you have to use supplemental oxygen up there, Eideteker?

My point is still that claiming Nader ruined the election is disgusting, repugnant, and unbecoming. Also, childish.

I disagree, Eideteker. You have to look at the practical impact of a candidacy. Just to put it in abstract terms, if Candidate A and Candidate K are in a dogfight for the election, and Candidate Z draws 2 percent of the vote, the vast bulk of which comes from Candidate K, then Candidate Z is, in practical terms, helping Candidate A win.

Nader drew more than 95,000 votes in Florida. "Exit polls in Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington State and Wisconsin suggested that at least half of Mr Nader's voters would have voted for Mr Gore had it been a two-way race." Bush's margin in Florida was somewhere around 500 votes.

So the available evidence indicates that Nader's presence did, in fact, help Bush win the 2000 election.

Personally, I think voting for people is bullshit.

My position is closer to yours than Eideteker's, TPS, but I think there's a little relevance to what the person running for the office is like. Today, about 85 percent of Americans disapprove of Pres. Bush personally, I think with good reason. The problem is, he was presented by his campaign and the media as a practical, cross-party-lines, regular guy type in 2000.

Personal attributes matter, but it's tough to guess at them. My vote for president is therefore carefully calibrated: 90 percent positions, 10 percent personality. For Congressmen, where they mostly have to vote one way or the other, it's more like 95/5. (I'd vote for, say, Barney Frank over Guy X whose positions are closer to mine, because Frank gets things done and is awesome).

misskaz, I don't understand the insult. If you've done your homework, then how are you parroting? I have no problem with people who do their job as citizens. I have problems with people who demonize individuals for making a stand against a system they feel is corrupt, injust, or just plain unrepresentative. I have problems with folks who deride others' votes as less important than their own. I have problems with folks who don't examine their choices, who engage in binary thinking, and who engage in defeatism.

Nader drew more than 95,000 votes in Florida. "Exit polls in Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington State and Wisconsin suggested that at least half of Mr Nader's voters would have voted for Mr Gore had it been a two-way race." Bush's margin in Florida was somewhere around 500 votes.

This is repugnant. It is not a game of numbers. If those 95,000 people wanted Al Gore, they would have voted for Al Gore. How dare you trivialize their votes, just because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to.

If you are that upset, why not work on vote reform? With an instant runoff ballot, those votes would ultimately have gone to Gore. Do not blame Nader. Do not blame the voters. It's disgusting. It's unAmerican. It's the cheap and easy way (so maybe it is American, after all).

Arguing with Nader apologists is like arguing with my kindergartener.

"For snack, you may have carrots or a granola bar."

"I want a cookie!"

"Cookie isn't one of your choices. Carrots or granola bar?"

"It's not fair! There should be more choices.I want a cookie!"

"Well, you may be right. We'll see what we can do about getting some cookies next time we shop. But you're not getting a cookie now. Carrots or granola bar?"

"I don't want either!"

"Fine, then I'll choose for you. You get carrots."

"But I HAAATE CARROTS!!"

Then the carrots go on to start a bloody and unjust war, while the granola bar wins an Oscar. Cookies stay on the shelf and occasionally say something deluded and/or racist.

*AND SCENE*

Eideteker, I don't see anything in my post that indicates that I am/was upset.

As I understand it, you deeply believe that a vote is a moral judgment by a voter, and cannot be meaningfully examined as to its impact. A vote is a vote, an expression of a voter's will, and that's that.

I disagree; I think that voting is, in fact, "a game of numbers," a selection from available choices, as in my hypothetical above. I guess we will agree to disagree.

I don't see anything in my post that indicates that I am/was upset.

Nope. To be absolutely fair, you were not among those calling Ralph Nader names. Thank you for being mature and considered in your responses, even if I sound like am I not returning the favor. I assure you, it's appreciated and I'll do my best to respond in kind.

you deeply believe that a vote is a moral judgment by a voter

No.

and cannot be meaningfully examined as to its impact

No, but the key here is "meaningfully." Not "you stole my election! Waaah!" Meaningfully, and dispassionately. There are no counterfactuals in life. Playing "if only" is by definition a meaningless endeavor.

A vote is a vote, an expression of a voter's will, and that's that.

And regardless of their motivation, once it has been made, it is inviolable and sacrosanct. It is not yours to move from column A to column B as it suits your needs. But I have long been an advocate for IRV, which DOES allow reallocation of votes per a prescribed, legal, and agreed-upon mechanism.

I guess we will agree to disagree.

I disagree.

"Cookie isn't one of your choices."

That's funny, I could swear Ralph Nader was legally on the ballot in a number of states. And "apologist" is misleading. Nader has nothing to apologize for (maybe his current remarks about Obama in the article; that still does not justify the level of political discourse used here to call him a "dick."). It's doubly misleading if you're calling me a Nader apologist; I voted for Gore.

Consider yourself lucky, ibmmcginty, that Eide didn't offer to vomit down your throat and/or call you a "partisan bullshit swallowing sack of shit," as he did several of us the last time Nader was mentioned.

*wipes away a wistful tear*

Good times, BP. Good times.

Classy.

I'm going to have to go with gaspode's blogger's stance, along with most of her commentators'.

Nader's comtemptable arrogance in presuming to dictate what someone should or shouldn't do strictly because of their race is shocking. I am only surprised that people still pay attention to him.

Regarding 2000- I agree that Gore lost that race, not Nader. It's was one more example of how the left's balkanization leaves it vulnerable. The right is very good at holding its nose and voting, which is why its so powerful.

Though of course he wasn't obliged to, I do think less of Nader for not dropping out of the 2000 race once he'd gotten his views out in the world. That was some sort of self-aggrandizement at the cost of the common good. He may have been within his rights but it was the wrong thing to do.

I know what *I* think it's disgusting, and it's not ruminating on Nader.

Will whoever took Eideteker's blankie away please give it back to him? Please?

Party-line voting is just another manifestation of the "our team - your team" herd mentality that pervades the US. Both sides mindlessly echo the chants and jeers of their respective cheerleaders. (Then when one side or the other makes what their fans think is a great play, the refs in SCOTUS shoot it down, but that's another story).

The Constitution was written for a nation of voters who think as individualists, not the bipartisan hive minds that surfaced as early as Washington's presidency. The presidency was meant to have multiple (more than two) candidates. Congress was meant to be multi-party and coalitional. People constantly ask why European countries can manage programs that cannot even get out of committee here, and therein lies the answer. Europe makes compromises because far more than two interests are represented, while in the US, every bill is make or break.

A vote for someone like Nader (or McKinney, this year (btw, I think McKinney would make a much better president than Obama but that's not saying much)) is not a wasted vote, and claiming that it helped Bush (or McCain) win is just another example of "go team go" chant mentality.

(My comment was posted before I saw that small_ruminant had posted immediately before me, and the 'ruminating' was in no way directed at her. I hope that was obvious.)

The Constitution was written for a nation of voters who think as individualists, not the bipartisan hive minds that surfaced as early as Washington's presidency.

Washington was not a member of any political party, and hoped that they would not be formed out of fear of the conflict and stagnation they could cause governance.

Y’know, I wasn’t gonna do this, but the fact of the matter is that I haven’t had a decent night’s sleep in about two weeks and this has been bugging me all morning. So, fuck it.

Eideteker, if you’ve got a beef with somebody’s political stance, that’s fine. Argue it out like an adult. But this name-calling is bullshit, pure and simple. You don’t know shit about me or my politics, (nor that of anyone else here, I’d guess), so you’d be much better served by keeping your unfounded suppositions to yourself. You wanna see an ad hominem? Here ya go;

You are a fucking hypocritical drone. Cut that shit out. Wake the fuck up and start thinking about things. Do not react from your gut. You have fucking thumbs, for crissakes. At least act like you're evolved, rather than parroting the same bullshit you think will win you favor with your peers. If your peers want to regurgitate the same bullshit they're being fed, then tell them to go fuck themselves. You can get new ones.

If I may borrow your tone of self-righteous indignation for a moment, stick it up your ass and fuck off while you’re doing it.

Over and out.

heh- no worries, mudpup- I thought it was funny.

/s_r goes back to ruminating on her typos.

You don’t know shit about me or my politics

If I wasn't talking to you, why are you offended?

Because you're tarring everyone who thinks Nader is grandstanding with the same brush. And if you truly think that his continued candidacy had absolutely no impact on the outcome of the 2000 election, you're even more naïve than I think. Grow up.

And with that, I am done.

Wow. Eid, this really isn't the place to be acting this way. Discuss calmly, if you can; if you can't, don't talk politics here.

I think Eideteker gnawed the legs off of the Lego poodle from the other thread.

Could you guys please take this back to MetaFilter?

I know, Eide, it was his fear that I was referencing. Or were you trying to enlighten everyone else?

I don't do MetaFilter anymore, me3dia.

I know I get undue joy from flying off the handle, taz, but c'mon. The thread is titled: "____ is such a dick." I'll desist, but let's not pretend the level of discourse was high in this thread to start with.

Eide: takin' it to the next level.

...let's not pretend the level of discourse was high in this thread to start with.

The "level of discourse" is irrelevant, especially since we're all commenting on a site that features approximately eight 'ZOMG WOOK AT DA CYOOT WIDDLE BUNNY!' posts a day.

What the discourse wasn't (until you showed up) -- aggressive and personal. To wit:

...can suck my just-as-black-as-Barack balls...

...your unflinchingly [...] unexamined minds...

...You are a fucking hypocritical drone.... You have fucking thumbs, for crissakes. At least act like you're evolved...

...disgusting, repugnant, and unbecoming. Also, childish....

...This is repugnant....

You don't get to be holier-than-thou on this one. Several people expressed opinions you disagree with, and you accused them, in unnecessarily aggressive terms of idiocy, hypocrisy, repugnance, primoridal-ism, and leading an unexamined life. Oh, and there was that invitation to suck your blacker-than-black balls.

Fuck discourse. You were being an ass. You don't get to whine about it now.

suck my just-as-black-as-Barack balls

We want FX (DAS-EFX)..

Dum-diggety-dum-diggedy-dumb, ha.

Jonmc/Box 08!

Well before the 2000 election Gore had written a book on the environment, founded the GLOBE Program on Earth Day 1994, and strongly sponsored the Kyoto Treaty (symbolically signing it in 1998). Bush was the governor of a state that led the nation "in air pollution, in toxic chemicals released, in factories violating clean water standards" and "according to the Environmental Protection Agency, of having the dirtiest air in America, of ranking 47th in water quality, and having the seventh-highest rate of release of toxic industrial byproducts onto its land." You'd think supporters of the motherfucking Green Party might have seen a teensy-weensy difference instead of saying there wasn't any difference, as Nader himself did.

According to the Florida Department of State election results for president in the 2000 election, Bush beat Gore by 537 votes, 2,912,790 votes to 2,912,253. Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. If fewer than 1% of Nader voters had voted for Gore he would have won Florida, and the election.