If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Ralph Nader wants Al Gore to run for President as the Green Party nominee. Do we go with ironic, since Nader cost Gore the Presidency, or obvious, because Nader is working to cost Democrats the presidency again?   (insightmag.com) divider line 81
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

217 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Mar 2007 at 6:17 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-03-30 06:27:37 AM
Go with img.fark.com because Nader thinks he would win with Gore.
 
2007-03-30 06:42:15 AM
I'd be down for some two party change in Washington.
 
2007-03-30 07:10:15 AM
Seeing as Americans are already suffering from campaign fatigue, 20 months out from elections, if Gore waited a bit and then threw his hat in the ring he might get a good shot. I certainly like his policy stances better than Rodham-Clinton's, or most of the other Dems. I am also a fan of a third (really a second) party - one not quite so attached to the corporate-agenda-campaign-cash nipple.

That said, Gore has some 'splainin' to do regarding that Giant Sucking Sound of NeoLiberal free-trade globalism that he said would be no problem back when he debated (and mocked) Perot.

Any ideas on a running mate?

P.S: Nader says Gore lost him the election.
 
2007-03-30 07:14:38 AM
there wont be a viable third party until theres a viable 4th party.


either that, or one of two current parties is so discredited that it cant even win a plurality.
 
2007-03-30 07:15:01 AM
chunksmediocrites: I am also a fan of a third (really a second) party - one not quite so attached to the corporate-agenda-campaign-cash nipple.

Me too. Too bad it's unrealistic with the current set up, and I don't see anyone folding to make the way for the third party.

Lobbyists and corporate interests pave the path. There's no way they'd be down with a third party like the green party.
 
2007-03-30 07:15:52 AM
Nader is a dinkwad. There's not even the slimmest chance in hell that he could ever win, he's only running because of his ego.

Third parties are a great idea...in theory, but if a third party is ever going to do anything but syphon votes away from non-Republicans, you need to get someone with some credibility. Nader ain't it.
 
2007-03-30 07:21:14 AM
Nader is a dinkwad. There's not even the slimmest chance in hell that he could ever win, he's only running because of his ego.

I don't want him to run either,but only because it could damage the Demo's in 08- but you can't say Nader is "only running because of his ego". He's the real deal. He's been a successful advocate for the American public his whole life.
It's a shame that no other politician in the race has even an ounce of Nader's credibility.
 
2007-03-30 07:29:01 AM
palmtree

He's fine as a consumer advocate. However, he can't be totally oblivious to the fact that he has absolutely no chance of winning. He couldn't even get the same party endorsement in 2004 that he had in 2000! If he knows this and runs anyway, what other possible explanation could their be?
 
2007-03-30 07:37:48 AM
zappaisfrank: He's fine as a consumer advocate. However, he can't be totally oblivious to the fact that he has absolutely no chance of winning.

Oh, he has a chance - a snowball's chance in hell, but a chance.

If he knows this and runs anyway, what other possible explanation could their be?

He believes in his cause?
 
2007-03-30 07:37:52 AM
submitter: since Nader cost Gore the Presidency

all gore had to do was carry his home state
 
2007-03-30 07:57:58 AM
Honestly, if Al Gore had been elected president in 2000, then it would have only delayed the current neocon disaster, rather than prevented it. Every bad thing in this country would be blamed on Al Gore, even if it only happened as a result of conservatism. Look at how conservatives continue to chant "But Clinton!" and "But Carter!" even today. Look at how they made Gray Davis the scapegoat in California for the problems that resulted from conservative de-regulation. If Al Gore had been elected president in 2000, then he would have been ousted in 2004, with an even stronger conservative republican congress to boot. All that stuff on global warming? Yeah, good luck getting that agenda through, with a year 2000 Senate.

The fact is, people are starting to wake up to the dangers of neoconservatism, specifically because they don't have anyone left to blame at this point. If Al Gore had been elected president, then liberals would still be the scapegoat for decades to come. "Look, no one wants to instate the PATRIOT Act or go to war with Iraq, but this would never be necessary if Al Gore didn't take such a slack stand post-9/11!"

Yes, maybe Al Gore would have made a better president than GWB, but the problem is, he wouldn't have made a very good politician. And unfortunately, it's the later that determines how much weight you have in this country.
 
2007-03-30 07:59:52 AM
Nader needs to be run over by an asphalt layer. Only because he killed the Corvair.

Go Gore, Go Green
 
2007-03-30 08:02:04 AM
The democrats pretty much can't lose unless there is another mysterious "Pearl Harbor-like event".
 
2007-03-30 08:13:31 AM
If he knows this and runs anyway, what other possible explanation could their be?

He's trying to build a viable third party. I don't believe it's worth the political costs to the Democrats, but maybe he actually knows what he's doing.
/I want to believe he knows what he's doing... but I have to admit I'm a little confused as to what the long term payoffs of a third party would actually be.
 
2007-03-30 08:31:29 AM
If Democrats are so worried about Nader, why don't they direct money to the Libertarians? They claim that Libertarians are just "embarrassed Republicans" anyway, so it's their chance to split their opponent's vote.

Plus, in states with open primaries, they can vote for Ron Paul en masse, and try to make him the Republican nominee. Not for strategic purposes, though, just because it would be cool.
 
2007-03-30 08:37:56 AM
HotWingConspiracy:The democrats pretty much can't lose unless there is another mysterious "Pearl Harbor-like event".

NEVER underestimate the ability of the Democrats to lose an election everybody thinks is in the bag.

That said, Gore has to look at the fact that he's not going to get the Democratic nomination, period. If he wants to be on the ballot on this election he needs to find a party to get it there. The Green party is the most logical choice.

Now, what Gore could do for them? It would bring a solid legitimate contender to the party rather than Nader. It would single handed bring the party more into the public focus. And possibly for the first time have a legitimate contender as a third party candidate.

I think it would be interesting.
 
2007-03-30 08:41:20 AM
Snarfangel:
If Democrats are so worried about Nader, why don't they direct money to the Libertarians? They claim that Libertarians are just "embarrassed Republicans" anyway, so it's their chance to split their opponent's vote.

No, Fark libertarians are embarassed republicans. Grass roots libertarians are militia members and software engineers.
 
2007-03-30 08:43:07 AM
america needs a 3rd party. one that represents the interests of the people, not just industry and corporations.
 
2007-03-30 08:46:43 AM
too bad the dems don't have a candidate that could win
 
2007-03-30 08:46:51 AM
HenrikFjord:
america needs a 3rd party. one that represents the interests of the people, not just industry and corporations.

Thats quite an astute observation. Let me know when you find a third party that represents both TGOT and me.
 
2007-03-30 08:48:40 AM
Desterion:
too bad the dems don't have a candidate that could win

Wasn't that the mid-term mantra as well?
 
2007-03-30 08:55:44 AM
Americans are so quaint. They debate so furiously between vanilla and strawberry ice cream that they never try any other flavour--after all how could it even come close to measuring up to the same shiat you've unwillingly eaten for the last 3 centuries. The names of the flavors may be the same, but honestly it's nutrasweet and milk versus other fake sugar and milk.

The problem is the electoral system. You should get to rank all the candidates you can vote for. If your #1 doesn't win, then your vote defers to your #2 choice, and so on until the race is between two final candidates. In the end more than 50% of voters must support the winner over the next closest finalist. ...and voting fraud mixed with the electoral college guarantees me a hangover for at least a week.
 
2007-03-30 08:56:01 AM
There is no "viable third party". As soon as any third party becomes viable, they will fall victim to the same avarice and ego that affects every other politician.

Don't fool yourself into believing that once there's a "viable third party" anything would significantly change.
 
2007-03-30 08:59:41 AM
h to the 'ojo:
They debate so furiously between vanilla and strawberry ice cream that they never try any other flavour

I've seen the Italian parliment. I'll stick with vanilla or strawberry, thanks.
 
2007-03-30 09:03:09 AM
Maybe all of the Democrats should vote green party instead.

I didn't vote for Nader, but I should have.
 
2007-03-30 09:19:27 AM
Nader is 73, 2 years older and even more washed up than McCain.
Sit down, Ralph, relax and wax the Corvair.
Time to give it a rest.
 
2007-03-30 09:20:57 AM
Hillary Clinton is only running because of her ego. Al Gore only makes movies about global warming because of his ego. Mitt Romney is only running because of his ego. Rudolfo Giuliani is only running because of his ego. Barak Obama is only running because of his ego. John McCain is only running because of his ego.

Guess what? Anyone who wants to be president has a gigantic putrid redolent slimy skanky ego. All of these people are wealthy big shots who don't need the job, won't do any better in the job than anyone else, and won't make a damned bit of difference in any event. In case you hadn't noticed, they're all well-connected establishment robots who disagree on almost nothing of substance. They all just want to etch their self-important names into the sands of history.

The person least likely to be running because of his ego is Ralph Nader. As to the whiny Democrats with their tiny violins blubbering about how "Nader cost them the election," that notion is beneath stupid and contemptible. It's a joke. Anyone who says it is a liar. Anyone who believes it is a fool.
 
2007-03-30 09:27:38 AM
www.mustangmods.com
 
2007-03-30 09:32:25 AM
foster404

submitter: since Nader cost Gore the Presidency

all gore had to do was carry his home state


You want to know why Gore didn't carry Tennessee?

Guns.

Specifically, his support for gun control. TN is a state chock full of hunters and shooters. Those people don't vote for candidates that advocate for stronger gun control.

You would think the Democrats would have learned that lesson, given the 'Rebulican Revolution' in the 1993 election (caused in large part because of passage of the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban), Al losing his home state and Arkansas (Clinton's home state) in 2000, and the passage of laws permitting concealed carry in 80% of the states, and the fact that the Assault Weapons ban didn't get renewed after it sunset.

Given some of the rumblings out of Washington, it doesn't appear that they have.
 
2007-03-30 09:36:54 AM
dittybopper: You want to know why Gore didn't carry Tennessee? Guns.

I disagree. He lost for many reasons. Remember that only Eastern Tennessee and the rural areas are red.

Sure, there are single-issue NRA voters out there, but saying he lost because of gun control is like saying Kerry lost Tennessee because of abortion.
 
2007-03-30 09:42:18 AM
Nope, stupid wins because we are still talking about environmentalists and democrats AND Al GORE as if they havent been exposed for the oppotunistic media whores they really are
 
2007-03-30 09:42:45 AM
Well, guns and cigarettes are the twin boogeymen against which the ninny baby boomer liberal safety nazis love to rail. It makes them feel like they're doing something, you know. It makes them feel like saints and Olympians who know better than the unwashed slobs what's good for them. They're saving lives.

It also betrays the fact that they're pathetically out of touch with ordinary people, just as the sweaty-browed anti-abortion leave-it-to-beaver religious zealots of the far right are pathetically out-of-touch with ordinary people.

What both these groups have in common is their intrusive, holier-than-thou fascist tendency to use the government to micromanage the lives of the citizenry. IOW, they're really very much alike, and similarly contemptible.
 
2007-03-30 09:46:39 AM
Stop the Vicious Spread of Wealth Creation: Vote Green, and Let's All be Poor and Miserable Together!

Ralph Nader was second only to Al Gore in losing Al Gore the election.
 
2007-03-30 09:56:33 AM
Desterion: too bad the dems don't have a candidate that could win

Oh... I'm afraid that your ignorant statement has just ensured everyone in this thread will have to put up with a shiny image.

farm1.static.flickr.com

* 14 years as U.S. Representative
* 1 year as Ambassador to the U.N.
* 3 years as Secretary of Energy
* Negotiated prisoners in Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, and Sudan
* 4 years as Governor (and counting), where he cut taxes and vastly improved the state economy, causing him to be praised by Steve Forbes and the Cato Institute
* Re-elected in a landslide in a not-so-blue state
* Helped Democrats recapture a majority of state governorships in 2006
 
2007-03-30 10:02:29 AM
bboy

dittybopper: You want to know why Gore didn't carry Tennessee? Guns.

I disagree. He lost for many reasons. Remember that only Eastern Tennessee and the rural areas are red.

Sure, there are single-issue NRA voters out there, but saying he lost because of gun control is like saying Kerry lost Tennessee because of abortion.


No, Kerry lost Tennessee for the same reason Gore did, guns.

I think you misunderstand the dynamic: Yes, there are single issue gun voters out there. Then, there are those people who use it like a filter: They won't vote for someone who supports stricter gun control, but it isn't the *MAIN* reason they vote for or against someone.

Besides, your assumption is that all gun voters are Republican, which is a very dangerous assumption to make. There are plenty of Democrats who are also shooters and hunters, and if you are a democrat in a close state you ignore them at your peril. West Virginia is a solidly democratic state (and another one Gore lost in 2000), but gun control is a non-starter there.

Of course, if you are a Democratic candidate who has spent most of his adult life in Washington D.C., those voters don't register on your radar: You don't identify with them, and you take their votes for granted. Then you get your ass handed to you in the rural counties that you thought were safe.

Oh, and shooters and hunters can smell a phony a mile away. That is why the fake hunting photo opportunities that Gore and Kerry went on didn't wash with them. They could tell that they were doing for their votes, and that they weren't serious about hunting or shooting.
 
2007-03-30 10:06:05 AM
FYI, more Florida Democrats "voted" for Bush in 2000 than the entire number of votes Nader received. Fark off Democrat whiners.
 
2007-03-30 10:09:30 AM
bboy

Sure, there are single-issue NRA voters out there,


One other thing, don't confuse those who believe in gun rights with their subset, the NRA. While it is pretty safe to say that most people in the NRA believe in the Second Amendment, not all who believe in the Second Amendment belong to the NRA, not by a long shot.

In fact, quite a number of people don't like the NRA because they believe the NRA compromises on gun issues too often.
 
2007-03-30 10:13:30 AM
Staypuft_Mushmallow_Manz

You misunderstand Green Party economic philosophy. They aren't against wealth creation per se, but rather advocate the "steady state" economy in which gross production remains flat but gains are measured in ecological health, availability of health care, education, and so on. So, your charcterization of their platform as "anti-wealth creation" is not quite accurate.

Of course, the Green economic platform is interestingly inconsistent with actual real human nature, which is ironic given their emphasis on ecology. It is clear that they don't understand human ecology very well, at all. The only way their "steady state" economy could work is through draconian limits on breeding. Given that humans are biologically programmed to breed in an uncontrolled manner, this implies a Green totalitarian state.

This does not distinguish them fundamentally from capitalists, however. Capitalists similarly misunderstand human ecology, and more importantly, physical limitations. This is ironic given that capitalists self-identify as "hard-headed" and "realistic." What capitalists clearly don't understand is that their perpetual growth model is physically impossible and that exponential growth (a basic, unavoidable mathematical truth) will inevitably cause their system to catastrophically implode. Capitalists rely on too many "externalities" to make their economic models work, and imagine that because these "externalities" haven't caught up with us yet means that they never will. This is a grave mistake, because the "externalities" will indeed catch up with them sooner or later, and boy are they going to be surprised.
 
2007-03-30 10:13:56 AM
elchip

I wouldn't trust the Cato institute to tell me the time of day, let alone who would be a good politician.
 
2007-03-30 10:16:04 AM
Bill Richardson :
* That is either the worst dye job I've ever seen, or an otter died on his head and was stapled in place...
* He's too portly, we don't like us no chunky president.
* He looks too much like someone I would be a "like new" car from.

Sorry, but as much as that's superficial, it's also why he won't win.
 
2007-03-30 10:25:14 AM
I, for one, blame Desterion for my seizuwrewer.asl;dk
 
2007-03-30 10:35:59 AM
dittybopper: In fact, quite a number of people don't like the NRA because they believe the NRA compromises on gun issues too often.

I'm guessing these are the folks that, if Jesus came back, would be killing him for "not being Christian enough"?
 
2007-03-30 10:46:31 AM
Murkanen: I wouldn't trust the Cato institute to tell me the time of day, let alone who would be a good politician.

I'd trust them to tell me who is "fiscally conservative."

revskippy: He's too portly, we don't like us no chunky president.

Taft? Cleveland? Adams?
 
2007-03-30 10:55:53 AM
The people who liked Taft, Cleveland, and Adams are dead. Us living peoples, don't like us no chucky president. Unless you are voting in Chicago, then all bets are off.
 
2007-03-30 10:59:23 AM
ceejayoz

dittybopper: In fact, quite a number of people don't like the NRA because they believe the NRA compromises on gun issues too often.

I'm guessing these are the folks that, if Jesus came back, would be killing him for "not being Christian enough"?


You'd be guessing wrong. I don't care for the NRA because they do seem too willing to compromise, yet I only see the inside of a church for weddings, funerals, and the occasional special event like my niece's First Holy Communion.

I think this points out a major misconception: Gun voters and religious funadamentalists are the same population.

While there might be overlap, and considerable overlap in places like the Bible Belt, you conflate the two at your own peril. I know quite a few liberal secularists who are shooters and hunters. I also know a few fundamentalists (and a nun) who wouldn't ever dream of touching a firearm, mainly because they believe the mistranslation of "Thou shall do no murder" as "Thou shall not kill".
 
2007-03-30 11:04:11 AM
canyoneer

The official Green Party economic philosophy is community based economics, i.e. decentralized free markets, regulated by stakeholders.

Some Greens find the "steady state" as perhaps the optimal economic condition -like laissez-faire would find equilibrium - but something that is not readily achievable, primarily because accurate measurement is not possible. But some Greens do advocate "steady state" theories further as a way of measuring macroeconomic performance. Some advocate beyond that to centrally planned regulation and enforcement of "steady state" initiatives. I would agree that the latter are at cross purposes with the idea of decentralized local markets, but in any event, the bottom line is that there are no specific activities or behaviors under either method that face specific scrutiny. What "steady state" theoretically requires is that ecologically damaging growth must be offset by increases in ecologically sustaining efficiencies elsewhere.

The leap to a Green totalitarianism on the basis "steady state" theories wildly overvalues their place in Green Party economic philosophy, and ignores the higher priority given to structures that place an emhasis on participatory decision-making, than on any measure of economic performance, including "steady state".
 
2007-03-30 11:12:30 AM
"What capitalists clearly don't understand is that their perpetual growth model is physically impossible and that exponential growth (a basic, unavoidable mathematical truth) will inevitably cause their system to catastrophically implode. Capitalists rely on too many "externalities" to make their economic models work, and imagine that because these "externalities" haven't caught up with us yet means that they never will. This is a grave mistake, because the "externalities" will indeed catch up with them sooner or later, and boy are they going to be surprised."

So when the crash comes, what economic and political models do you think will emerge in its place?
 
2007-03-30 11:24:33 AM
It would be awesome if Gore waited till the very last minute to jump into the race. It would save him from months and millions of dollars of campaigning and he could spread the message just off the press coverage and buzz alone. A political Shock and Awe campaign.
I like Obama but I'd vote for Gore in a second.
 
2007-03-30 11:27:16 AM
Third and single issue parties suck.
 
2007-03-30 11:27:18 AM
Seconded, Sybri
 
Displayed 50 of 81 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report