If it wasn't for his selfishness, Al Gore would be elected in 2000 and we would not face none of the problems such the nonsense Iraq war or sky-high budget deficit or big corporations destroying middle class?!
2007-06-22 03:37:06 · 13 answers · asked by Ronnie 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
1. The Supreme Court allowed Florida Republicans to manipulate the election results in 2000,
2. Al Gore lost his own home state of Tennessee and Clinton's home state of Arkansas,
3. not a single Democratic senator stood behind the Black Caucus when they questioned the legitimacy of the recount, and
4. the Democratic Party were complicit with over 90,000 African-Americans and others being removed from voter rolls in Florida (not to mention thousands of others in other states).
Yes, Ralph Nader is to blame for Al Gore's loss in 2000...
2007-06-25 12:39:00 · answer #1 · answered by the_alliance47 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do blame Nader-- he divided the vote and allowed Bush to be elected. I agree with the previous poster who said that people who voted for him voted with their conscience, that he stood up for what he believed. Although I agree with that in theory, in practice sometimes one must set aside their idealism and look at reality. It was obvious that if the people who voted for Nader were unable to vote for him, the predominance of those votes would have gone to Gore. Nader's insistance in running resulted Bush winning, an event that I truly believe has set the US on the road towards decline as a nation.
Still, its a stretch to attribute all the badness going on right now to just Nader, it also has to do with a society that can't tell the difference between brown people and towed the party line about Iraq being retribution for 9-11, people who thought that it was ok to push our brand of democracy on others and people who faled to understand that the decisions made by someone like Bush will always benefit people like Bush, not the middle class.
2007-06-22 03:49:43 · answer #2 · answered by Megan W 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
***** and moan. That is all I hear people doing these days. Ross Perot did the same thing when George Bush Sr. was running. He took votes from him and Clinton won. Nothing new. Why can't you guys let the election of 2000 go?? Al Gore was a dud (not that bush is much better), he didnt even win his home state.
Plus people keep bringing up Florida, Bush's brother was governor of Florida at the time, yet people like you keep bringing that up as well. Get over it. If you want to make a difference focus on 2008 and making sure the democrats dont implode like they always do.
2007-06-22 03:49:33 · answer #3 · answered by DAVIDRZR 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely! It's Nader's fault! It's Ross Perot's fault! It's Michael Badnarik's Fault! It's the fault of absolutely anyone anywhere that has the unmitigated gall to think that anyone has the right to run for President without the blessing of the Demopublican Party!
How dare the knaves. They should all be flogged mercilessly.
2007-06-22 03:45:45 · answer #4 · answered by open4one 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
GREEN PARTY & COLLEGE KIDS--DO NOT VOTE FOR RALPH NADER!!! HE IS DESTROYING AMERICA BY PUTTING REPUBLICANS IN OFFICE!!!
RAPLH NADER IS THE WORST THAT HAPPENED TO AMERICA RIGHT AFTER DICK CHENEY.
Nader knows FULL WELL that he can NEVER win a Presidential Election--he only got 400,000 votes in 2004!! He knows that his running put George Bush & Dick Cheney back in office; and he'll put another insane Repulican in office agian if he runs!.
Ralph Nader is a self-absorbed EGOMANIAC who gets cheap thrills from bringing America to it's knees.
Those who follow have been brainwashed into his
"NADER CULT".
.... RALPH NADER IS ALSO MIDDLE EASTERN!!
HIS PARENTS ARE FROM LEBANON AND HE DOESNT LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THIS!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
2007-06-22 03:53:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Get off your high horse. Nader stood for some integrity for once instead of being the lesser of 2 evils. It is sad that people vote their fears and not what they truly believe. That is why things are so screwed up so don't blame Nader.
2007-06-22 03:40:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
And
Nader is the reason we do not have a president that is enviroment friendly
Ironic to say the least
almost as Ironic as naming an international airport after the only person in history to fire all air traffic controllers
2007-06-22 03:51:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
By mess do you mean record high Dow, record low unemployment, tax cuts, and a more stable economy
2007-06-22 03:43:21 · answer #8 · answered by only p 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm glad he ran, and I'm glad he tipped the balance to Bush in 2000. Can you imagine that pacifist in office during Sept. 11? He'd be yammering on and on about feeling the terrorists' pain and trying to understand why they hated us so.
Just like Leftists do now.
2007-06-22 03:46:16 · answer #9 · answered by SallyJM 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I DO blame Nader, I thought we won the election (though we did).
Nader should stick with his consumer reports.
2007-06-22 03:41:03 · answer #10 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋