Posted on 02/25/2008 11:37:19 AM PST by fightinJAG
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ralph Nader lashed out at the Democratic presidential candidates Monday after they said he could hurt their chances of taking back the White House.
[snip]
Many Democrats fear that Nader, who turns 74 this week, could draw votes away from whoever gets the party's nomination, potentially helping presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain win the White House in November.
[snip]
"He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, and, eight years later, I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about," Obama said at a town hall meeting Sunday.
Clinton also said Nader "is responsible for George W. Bush" and called his candidacy "regrettable" during a Boston, Massachusetts, fundraiser Sunday night.
"We can't assume that we're going be able to win overwhelmingly," she said. "We're going to have to fight for every state, and Ralph Nader is a problem."
Earlier, Clinton said Nader -- who says environmental policies are central to his platform -- "prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Both parties have people making “not good enough” arguments against the nominee, and both parties as a whole view such people the same way-—as spoilers and as responsible for the election of the other guy.
If people feel strongly justified in not voting for their party’s candidate, fine. But they should at least acknowledge that their act of (1) refusing to vote, or (2) voting for a protest candidate who has no chance of winning makes them responsible for the election of the other guy.
If people are unwilling to acknowledge that, then at least acknowledge that the rest of the party views their act that way.
“Clinton said Nader — who says environmental policies are central to his platform — “prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had.””
So, finally, Ralph Nader made himself useful and Hillary Clinton wants to feed him crap about it? Sheesh. has she no shame?
Oh, yeah... right...
GO RALPH, GO!
I’m thinking for this very reason Algore may be in the picture as a VP!
Anyway, Go Ralph! Peel off those “my nominee’s not liberal enough” Rats!
In a land where stupidity is both ubiquitous and monumental, Ralph Nader is clearly in the running for Most Stupid American.
Perhaps the spoiler here is the Democrat party, who put up candidates so unworthy as to make Ralph Nader look like a viable option.
RUN RALPH, RUN! FIGHT RALPH, FIGHT! LOSE RALPH, LOSE!
PS - Nader, thanks for taking 97,421 Florida moonbat votes from Gore in 2000.
Reminder: I need a Nadar bumper sticker for the Corvair.
That’s Ralph Nader’s line. Use it if you like.
“He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, and, eight years later, I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about,” Obama said at a town hall meeting Sunday.”
Obama is right. Al Gore wouldn’t have gotten us deeper into the corn-ethanol scam. Gore preferred the greater carbon credit trading scam.
Nadar = Nader...sheeesh.
I may just donate $20 to Ralphie.
But I’m wondering if those who are refusing to vote for McCain see themselves at all in this.
As I said, they often say they are not responsible for the election of the other guy when they bail on the election or cast a protest vote.
But the big world out there thinks otherwise. It is what it is.
So, I’m wondering, if a person feels justified in refusing to vote for a particular nominee, what’s the problem with admitting that, thereby, they are helping the other guy get elected? What’s up with always trying to “blame” someone else for the result of the election?
Right.
Today people on our side are making the same arguments about McCain and Obama/Clinton-—that there’s no difference between them.
Like Ralph Nader, they are wrong. Very wrong.
What I’d like to know is, who out there considers B. Hussein Obama to be too conservative for their taste?
Not the SAME, exactly, just liberal, liberaler and liberalest.
For someone who's only credential is being the first lady as a result of H.Ross Perot, this is indeed an interesting statement.
My prediction right now based on the way hillary is going to ‘earn’ the democrat nomination is McCain 55% of the vote, Nadar 5%. Hillary less than 40%. So the good news is the marxists will be defeated this year. The bad news is that we’ll have a liberal, McCain, as president. It’s up to the base to re-group and re-energize for the 2010 mid-terms, we must work to get conservatives back in the senate and the house.
Hillary is not going to get the nomination. I wish she would, because she can easily be defeated in November. But she is finished, whether she wants to believe it or not.
Nader is a joke, not a spoiler. In 2000 he meant something, not now.
Oh, there are lots of people out there saying (attributed to TSchermeL)—”Let’s lose one for the Gipper!”
Holy schnikees... Barry "not liberal enough" for some people?
Must be people that the moonbats call "moonbats".
If Clinton thought Gore would have been the best President ever, why didn’t the Democrats run Al Gore in 2004 to “correct” their mistake? Why isn’t he running this year? Is he no longer capable of being the “best president ever”?
The problem is the very mentality / reasoning / approach that caused McCain to be the nominee precludes "[getting] conservatives back in the Senate and House." See mid-terms 2006.
See more [here # 134].
The only way to constitute a Republican majority in congress is for good, decent conservatives in RINO districts to vote for RINOs anyway (so that then true conservatives in the majority can get into positions of national leadership). But isn't that "unprincipled" in the same way it's "unprincipled" to vote for McCain even if it leads to the election of a Rat?
Maybe so. But the teaching point is that many here are advocating doing to the Republican party what Nader did to the Rats in 2000 and what Perot did to the Republicans in 1992 and 1996.
It may be a “joke” in your mind, but many people fail to find it the least bit funny.
Yeah, sounds crazy.
Until you realize we have the same thing going on in our party.
Ralph is a good subject for a book entitled Unsafe at Any Age.
I’ve often said I thought Algore might be VP for Obama. Who knows? He might even suck it up and agree to run with Hildy, just so he can enlarge his greeness from the White House.
That said, the point I take from the article is aimed at all those who think it’s not their problem if they bail on the Republican nominee by not voting or casting a vote for Spongebob.
Right or wrong, the big world out there does not agree with their view and, rather, holds them responsible for handing the election to the other guy. And I think it’s right for those on that path to accept that fact on how they are viewed.
This happens in both parties in every election, and both parties have the same perspective-—the quitters are spoilers and worse.
The parties don’t “get the message.” On the contrary, as seen from this article and many others, the strategy now is to blatantly point out that those associated with the party (even if not actual members) who undermine the party’s goal to win elections are to be-—to put it nicely-—discouraged.
Hildy and Obama both stated more clearly than politicians usually do that those who voted for “x” (in this case Nader) were responsible for “y” (in this case Bush) getting elected. It works the same way on the Republican side.
I think if a conservative candidate acted like a conservative he’d win primaries and general elections. For example, on the issue of immigration, amnesty is opposed by the vast majority of Americans. If Americans in each district were made aware of the true costs of illegal immigration, such as the strain on our health care system, the people would rally behind that candidate. With regards to tax cuts, if candidates stated that tax rate reductions increased revenues to the government, that the rich actually pay more of the nation’s tax burden when rates are lowered, they’d be in real good shape.
The key in my mind is to get true believers to run. Start campaigning the day after an election. Educate the people of their district on a daily bases. Financing will be there from grass roots conservatives if we actually have conservatives to support. So let there be no rino districts. We need to get conservatives to run in every primary.
Yeah, what's up with that JAG?
When the Dem and Repub nominees are so pitiful that they can't even get their base to come out and vote why do they and their supporters always look for scapegoats?
It sure would be nice to have no RINO districts, but that’s not going to happen soon, if ever.
People today have more access to more sources of information than ever before. No one is locked in to the MSM. Yet there’s never enough to educate the vast majority of the electorate.
That said, it’s not the vast majority that votes in primaries. It’s the party’s activists. They are the party’s most educated and most motivated. Yet they still didn’t seem to realize that if they did not unite and rally around a more conservative candidate, they would get a less conservative nominee.
The “my way or the highway” mentality has become so pervasive and so pernicious that even in a place like FR, there was practically zero unity around one conservative candidate.
So the base fragments and will continue to do so. In the meantime, the party will be looking around for whoever they can get to replace those who continually go on strike. By definition, those replacements will not share the strikers’ views. Thus, the strike causes the party to continue to shift leftward.
They don’t look for scapegoats.
They are simply stating facts. Ralph Nader, and candidates like him, take votes away from the major party candidates, potentially changing the result of the election.
That is a fact, not scapegoating.
It’s those who vote for Nader, and candidates like him, or who sit home, who look for scapegoats. They don’t want to acknowledge that the rest of the world views them as responsible for playing into the fact that third party candidates are ALWAYS nothing but spoilers. They want to blame the party, the candidates, the MSM, Hollywood, on and on . . . someone or something FORCED them to vote for a third candidate or to sit home.
Who is FORCING you not to support the Republican nominee?
No one. You are an adult who is making a volitional choice. Deal with it.
What I’d like to know is, who out there considers B. Hussein Obama to be too conservative for their taste?
Ralph Nader for one!
For example, NH and Maine have 4 RINO Senators. The alternative is 4 Democrats, not 4 conservatives.
If conservatives in NH and ME lose those seats, where will they be made up? California?
It can be if we push back against the pernicious victim mentality that has become so prominent here.
Good point.
Nader will not be a spoiler unless the rat nominee moves right. Nader is making noises just to keep the rat nominee hard left. Undoubtedly, the rat nominee will try to moderate from the current Marxist ideology. Nader wants to ensure that the rat nominee remains on the Marxist plantation.
Exactly.
If you didn’t vote for those RINOs, we would never have a prayer of constituting a majority, and people like Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde would never have been in leadership positions.
And those who state it is “unprincipled” to ever vote for a RINO and still hoping-—I guess based on the rest of us being “unprincipled”-—that we’ll somehow come up with a Republican majority to stop the Rat administration they helped gain power by refusing to vote for the Republican nominee.
Sigh.
They are simply stating facts. Ralph Nader, and candidates like him, take votes away from the major party candidates, potentially changing the result of the election.
That is a fact, not scapegoating.
You are just assuming that the votes for the third party candidate are coming from another candidate. How do you know that the third party candidate isn't bringing out someone who wouldn't otherwise be voting?
It’s those who vote for Nader, and candidates like him, or who sit home, who look for scapegoats. They don’t want to acknowledge that the rest of the world views them as responsible for playing into the fact that third party candidates are ALWAYS nothing but spoilers. They want to blame the party, the candidates, the MSM, Hollywood, on and on . . . someone or something FORCED them to vote for a third candidate or to sit home.
I haven't heard one person say the party is forcing them to stay home or vote third party. If anything it is the supporter's of the main candidates that continuously trying to browbeat and force others to vote for their candidate.
Eventually people get fed up with the constant berating and throw their hands up and say, "Screw you guys. You're never getting my vote again."
Who is FORCING you not to support the Republican nominee?
I didn't realize there was a Republican nominee yet.
No one. You are an adult who is making a volitional choice. Deal with it.
Mm-hmm, I am an adult and I'll be happy with my decision in November whatever it is.
It's just too bad that McCain will have to deal with the fallout from treating so many people like crap over the past decade or so (a trait his followers are quick to emulate).
But I’m wondering if those who are refusing to vote for McCain see themselves at all in this.
As I said, they often say they are not responsible for the election of the other guy when they bail on the election or cast a protest vote.
But the big world out there thinks otherwise. It is what it is.
So, I’m wondering, if a person feels justified in refusing to vote for a particular nominee, what’s the problem with admitting that, thereby, they are helping the other guy get elected? What’s up with always trying to “blame” someone else for the result of the election?
Because it is only the loser candidate that makes the issue “a vote for a Third Party candidate is a vote for my opponent”
This is the immature loser whine everytime a 3d Party candidate comes along. Its never the mainstream party candidate sucking so bad
Third party votes never cost anyone an election. Being a bad candidate always does
By no means this is an endorsement for Nader....he actually is no different than McCain, Hillary or Obama.
Would like to see a good CONSERVATIVE third party candidate run
“But I’m wondering if those who are refusing to vote for McCain see themselves at all in this.”
yeah, yeah. We GET it. can we drop it already ?
he doesn’t need any money. Sunlight and wind power are for free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.