Who decided I live in a red state?

Let’s compare. Nader runs Super Bowl ad: gets message to millions of Americans. Nader runs for office he has absolutely no chance of winning: gets message to millions of people, and helps keep the Republican Party in the White House.

It’s the Green Party! And the only effect they’ve had so far in national politics is helping Al Gore, Mr. Climate, lose. If Nader had bowed out, we’d be signators of the Kyoto Treaty. This is completely about Nader, not about America.

If Democrats go on to nominate Hillary Clinton (who was long a vocal critic of fellow Democrats who advocated withdrawal), then they DESERVE to lose the 2008 election.

That depends on whom the Republicans nominate!

When asked about the ’spoiler’ accusation, Nader said: “Democrats have become, over the years, very good at electing very bad Republicans. Democrats always know how to implode, how to be ambiguous, how to waver, how not to be authentic.”

About Hillary Clinton: “She is a political coward. She goes around pandering to powerful interest groups on the one hand and flattering general audiences on the other. She doesn’t even have the minimal political fortitude of her husband.”

Can’t say that I disagree with Nader on either of these two points.

Demcrats love to whine and complain about Nader ciphering off votes that are “rightfully” theirs but can’t seem to admit the simple truth that nominate mediocre candidates.

The majority of Democrats disagreed with John Kerry’s stance on the Iraq War, but they went ahead and nominated him anyway.

A majority of Democrats have disagreed with Hillary Clinton’s stance on the Iraq War, and yet she currently leads in the polls.

If Democrats go on to nominate Hillary Clinton (who was long a vocal critic of fellow Democrats who advocated withdrawal), then they DESERVE to lose the 2008 election.

Nader is no more likely to win with his extremist agenda than Kucinich. That’s even if Nader had his far-left goal of teenage voters realized to boost his vote totals.

It can never be wrong that there are more parties out there, who try to serve the people.

It should never be wrong, but unfortunately, in America, it is quite possible.

As to the spoiler thing. It is quite reasonable to think that he WAS a “spoiler”, as he tipped the election in favor of Bush. 97,421people voted for Nader in Florida, and Gore lost by 540-odd votes. Now I’m fairly confident that if Nader hadn’t run in Florida, at least 600 more of those 97,421people would have voted for Gore than either voted for Bush or stayed home. Simple cause and effect. The effect of Nader being in the election caused Bush to win the Presidency. You could point out voter disenfranchisement, or Gore’s lack political savy, which can all be true, but it doesn’t prevent Nader from tipping the election in favor of Bush.

Now, if you want to say that the long term implications of pushing for a third party outweigh the short term effects upon elections, you might have an argument there, but the opposing view is much less than “beyond ridiculous”. I’d say again that changing the voting system is much more likely to have positive long term effects than one more egotistical politician with no chance, and it’s hard to see how Nader’s benefit outweighs the negative of currently being in Iraq, which would at least have been much much less likely if we had a president who didn’t believe in “Bush Doctrine” type approaches to foreign policy.

“the entire ’spoiler’ accusation is beyond ridiculous. Back in 2000, Gore lost because of Gore. Back in 2004, Kerry lost because of Kerry. It can never be wrong that there are more parties out there, who try to serve the people. Is the American political system broken? I most certainly believe it is. Well, by forcing the two parties to fight for every vote, the system might, perhaps, be fixed or at least improved.”

The problem with Nader, and any third party in American Winner-Takes-All electoral college, is that by fracturing the voting unity of the party closest to your ideals you do nothing but promote the other party.

Nader, with his particular set of views, kneecaps the Democrats. For all intents and purposes until we implement some sort of electoral college portioning system he may as well be a snarky GOP tool.

Idealism is well and good, but certain realities of the system prevent him from doing anything but harm to his own side.

Can’t he skewer the candidates (both sides need it) without throwing his own hat in the ring?