Ralph Nader complains that George Bush and Dick Cheney are Dodging Impeachment.
Wouldn’t it have been better if Ralph Nader had thought of this before he helped George Bush get elected, claiming there was no difference between George Bush and Al Gore? As Jonathan Chait has written, Nader intentionally campaigned in the battleground states where it would hurt Gore:
In the waning days of the 2000 election, some of Nader’s campaign advisers urged him to concentrate on uncontested states, like New York and California, where he could attract local media without competition from the major-party candidates and win liberal voters who needn’t fear tipping the race to George W. Bush. Instead, he chose a whirlwind tour of battleground states, campaigning in Pennsylvania and Florida, where votes would be harder to come by but more consequential to the outcome of the race. Liberals assume Nader tried to maximize his vote total without regard to how it affected Bush and Gore. The truth is that he actively sought to help Bush, even at the expense of his own vote total.
The documentary, “An Unreasonable Man” debunks Chait’s contention about such a strategy on the part of Nader and his 2000 campaign. More — not fewer — voters should have voted for Nader. He’s always been best on the issues.
If there was evidence to the contrary it would be helpful to have a link to a counterargument. Obviously people reading this are not going to rush out to view a documentary but could read a linked article. Considering all the criticism of Nader over his role in 2000 I would think that if this argument could easily be debunked people would have written about it on line.
Still blaming Nader for the ills of the world?
What about blaming Gore and the Democrats for choosing JOE LIEBERMAN as the #2?
What about: Gore actually won, in Florida, and the nation?
What about: the Democrats in the senate refused to investigate the vote theft of Florida because of Jeb Bush’s felon list. Even as Florida representatives were begging for this to be investigated (see Fahrenheit 911), not one Dem stood up for democracy.
If the Democrats didn’t have such an obviously corrupt party, Bush wouldn’t have gotten so much support.
Same thing happened in 2004. Kerry wins, yet capitulates. Ohio remains stolen, despite reams of evidence it too was stolen. No one in the Democratic party stands up for democracy. They bury the vote theft issue, insuring it will happen again and again.
Nader was wrong on one count. The Democrats are worse. They convince a lot of otherwise intelligent people that they are the “opposition” when clearly the record shows no such thing.
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/