Nader fans pick Gore — seven years too late

October 28, 2007

Great. Now Nader voters are coming around.

Right or wrong, people who voted for Ralph Nader get blamed for costing Al Gore the 2000 election.

Now, some of those very same voters are throwing themselves into a new – and nonexistent – campaign: Gore 2008. […]

Another former Naderite, Northern California author Bill Katovsky, isn’t exactly hiding his feelings this month by editing a “quotable quotes” book called “The World According to Gore: The Incredible Vision of the Man Who Should be President.”

Katovsky says many feel it’s “redemptive” and “cathartic” to support Gore this time around.

“The right wing never apologizes and never admits to making mistakes, and I think the left is full of guilt and angst and this collective mentality that we were indirectly responsible for Bush’s eight-year reign of terror,” he said.

Whether Nader backers are indirectly responsible for Bush’s presidency remains a matter of some debate, but I suppose it’s heartening to see them embrace Gore … even if it is seven years too late.

I was really pulling for Al Gore in 2000, and I know without a doubt that life would be a lot different had he been elected (although I do shudder to think of Joe Lieberman being positioned as the heir apparent to a two-term Gore presidency). And no one can question his passion and energy on the environment and climate change.

But.

He’s not going to run, and he’s not going to be president, so I would like for all the Gore-dreamers to stop looking back and start looking ahead. There are only a little more than 2 months left before a much-shortened primary season begins – Gore doesn’t have the money or the organization and more important – after winning the Nobel, he would be a fool to step off that platform and bury all his hard work in the minutiae of a presidential campaign.

Start channeling your energy and your focus and your passion on the candidates who are running. Al Gore has a place in the political dialogue, but it isn’t at the top of the ticket.

  • What a bunch of bozos. Yeah, looks like they got it completely frakking wrong in 2000. Welcome to Camp Reality, guys.

  • I do not find it heartening. I find it to be more evidence that these people never heard the Rolling Stones’ song You Can’t Always Get What You Want.

    I do not think Gore is going to run or is seeking to be drafted. I could be wrong, but maybe these chumps should put their energy into making sure the Republicans do not take the Whitehouse and continue to lose ground in the Congress in 2008.

  • Some of us ‘chumps’ see Hillary running away with the primary, then losing to a Republican in the general election. Do we really want another 4 to 8 years of the Republicans running the White House? Send Gore a message by joining one of the draft groups. Go to AmerciaforGore.org, AlGore.org, or DraftGore.com for more info.

  • “…Bush’s eight-year reign of terror…”

    Strictly speaking, it hasn’t been seven years yet, and for most, it’s been a reign of error. If we’re talking about the terror he fomented in Iraq, it’s just 4 1/2 years.

  • What it proves more than anything is that they really still don’t get it.

    They cannot unring the Bush bell. Thousands are dead because they refused to join the Reality Based Community.

    So in response they. . . continue to avoid the Reality Based Community.

    Reality: Gore is not running.
    Reality: If Gore enters now, he will not be nominated; he will merely sully the good reputation he has built since 2000.

    Those are not opinions; to anyone who takes the blinders off and deals in objective political realities with any seriousness of thought and attention to history, logistics and election law, those are facts.

    So the Naderites have gone from costing Gore an election by acting in a fantasy world to supporting Gore in an election that only exists in a fantasy world.

    In the meantime, back here in Reality, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Dodd all still have a realistic opportunity to be nominated to run against the Republican candidate. They could all use financial and physical help. Entities like MoveOn and DFA and your local Democratic Party and labor union all have an important role to play in defeating Republicans.

    Wanna assuage your guilt in a productive way? Wanna show me you really have learned something and grown up since 2000? Devote your efforts to one of those groups or campaigns. Make a difference in Reality, while you still can.

  • Katovsky says many feel it’s “redemptive” and “cathartic” to support Gore this time around.

    You know, you can solve all sorts of problems by picking out what’s “redemptive” and “cathartic” for you to do at any one time, from fixing your car to mowing your lawn…

    /snark

  • brewski,
    Sorry, but you are thousands of days late and millions of dollars short. You are tilting and windmills thinking that your voice and those of others who feel as you do can create a successful Gore candicacy now. Don’t want Hillary to win the nomination? Then don’t accept the conventional MSM message that she is inevitable. Pick one of her challengers and back that person with all the passion you have. And, if Hillary should get the nomination, support her. Don’t sit home on your hands or cast a meaningless protest vote. If you feel like you would have to hold your nose to vote for Hillary, I can understand that. But, picture President Romney or President Giuliani or President McCain, or President Huckabee. If you are anything at all like me, you will not simply be holding your nose, you will be reaching for the barf bag .

    As I said above, you can’t always get what you want. So get what you need.

  • I’m sorry, but where did Nader voters actually affect the outcome of the 2000 election? Were there any electoral votes (the bit of the election that matters) that were shifted to Bush because of Nader?

    And before you point at Florida, remember that Gore did win that state, if you counted all of the votes. The problem was not with the Nader campaign, but with the U.S. Supreme Court and Katherine Harris anointing Bush. What was noble about Gore conceding the result he knew to be disastrous for the country?

    It may make you feel good to direct your anger at the stereotype of Nader voters as pot-heads and know-nothings, but let’s get the facts straight. Bush won because the fix was in, not because of Nader.

  • Okay Astrogeek, for the sake of argument I’ll see your Florida and raise you New Hampshire.

    Nader cost Gore the election. You can try and spin your way out of it. I probably would too if I played a direct role in electing George W. Bush and unleashing the hell of the last 7+ years on the world like the Naderites did.

    Spin, spin, spin… it doesn’t change the facts.

    The Supreme Court? We don’t even get to that if not for Nader. If not for Nader butterfly-ballots are a small election footnote. Katherine Harris is unknown today if not for Nader.

  • Nader and all those who supported him are beyond redemption. Just ask those Americans who have lost loved ones in Iraq and those honorable American soldiers who live with permanent injuries. There are no do-overs for them.

  • OK, Steve (@#11), I’ll give you New Hampshire. But to say Florida is irrelevant is willfully ignoring the facts. Gore played it wrong in the face of the illegal SCOTUS decision and he, and you, and I know it.

    But you’re throwing stones at the wrong guy. I voted for Nader in Arizona. Gore lost here by 50,000 votes even if you throw in the Nader voters.

  • Ah, but haven’t you heard? Al Gore has changed.

    Seriously, I got into an argument a while back with an acquaintance of mine who has traded in his Nader 2000 T-shirt on the new ’08 Draft Gore model and that does appear to be the rationalization. Sure, Al Gore may have been just another evil, “bought and paid for,” corporatist, Demican-Republicrat back in 2000 when he stood athwart the path of their god to his rightful place in the White House. But that was the old Gore. The Al Gore these same clowns now want to draft as their candidate is the new Al Gore — you know, the one who made that movie everyone liked. How could that possibly be the same guy? :b

  • I’ve heard that Gore played it wrong with SCOTUS before. What was he supposed to do? The Supreme Court is the last avenue for legal decisions. He lost that decision. He was gracious and conceded. If he had continued fighting, he would have been acting beyond the law. This is/was a nation of laws. Don’t blame Gore for following the law.

    And I don’t just blame the Nader followers for Bush. Think about the bozos now on the Supreme Court for life. SCOTUS now is far far worse because some people were too pure to vote for a Democrat, prefering to believe the lies told by the Republicans. If as Maher pointed out Bush was obviously a moron in 2000, Gore was just as obviously a good man then.

  • Had Gore chosen to run, I would support him in every way I could. As it stands, the Republicans are going to be putting on a campaign based on the twins fears of terrorism and illegal immigration. The ads will make the Willie Horton ad look like Sesame Street. And they’ll work.

    The Naderites did put their foot in it in 2000. That they might have had an effect on the election says to me that the Dems weren’t exactly knocking ’em dead. The Democrats nominated a candidate who managed to lose in 2004, when we had all begun to know what we had in Bush, which suggests that they simply don’t know how to win an election. The Dems will likely nominate Hillary in 2008 – and she’ll lose.

  • Nader did siphon off votes. Whether it was enough to cost Gore the election I don’t remember and frankly don’t give a rat’s ass at this point.

    If Naderettes are now calling for a Gore candidacy, we should give them a swift kick in the ass. Gore won’t run..its a bit late for them to wake up and smell the ‘premium grind’ now.

    I would like Gore to run, even though he is just as big a capitalist as anyone else the Dem’s are touting..with the exception of Kucinich of course.

  • Dennis – I’ll give you both of your key points, that Gore 2000 was not a well-run campaign and it never should have been close, and that 2004 suggests the Democratic “machinery” just doesn’t know how to win.

    But despite all of those missteps, 2000 was winnable. And the Naderites knew it was close; the final polls were certainly showing it. And still they voted Nader. Florida never goes to the Supreme Court without Nader taking thousands of votes from Gore. And there is no Bush, no Iraq, no Alito, no Roberts. There is, however, much more remaining of New Orleans.

    The only time the electoral skills of the Democrats have looked remotely competent in my lifetime was in 92 and 96 (Carter was an aberration – his campaign didn’t exactly look well-oiled; he was the right man for his year.) Clinton not only won, but started that race when GHWB had a 90% approval based on Iraq: The Prequel.

    Which is one reason HRC remains on my short list as it gets shorter: Team Clinton is the only subset of the party that has shown any ability to win national elections.

  • Zeitgeist, I agree that 2000 was eminently winnable. If a party can’t capitalize on eight years of prosperity and relative peace then that party needs to look in a clear-eyed way at its methods and its candidates.

    Much as I respect Al Gore, his running away from Clinton was a huge mistake in that it gave sub rosa validation to all of the Republicans’ attacks on him. He gave the appearance of repudiating the administration which had put him in a position to run. How in the world did the Democrats expect to cash in on the good will toward the Clinton administration when they were falling all over themselves to turn their backs on it?

  • Jebus frackin’ christ! Will this canard never die?

    Nothing causes otherwise intelligent people to expel fatuous brain farts like Nader’s role in the 2000 election: If Nader hadn’t run, Gore woulda won. It’s a fact!

    Well, all you would be Einsteins, here’s another fact: If cows could fly, we’d all have to wear hardhats every time we went outside.

    But, cows can’t fly and Nader did run.

    Gore ran the lamest campaign in modern American political history in 2000. It’s a fact!:

    –Had Gore carried his home state, the Florida outcome would have been moot.

    –Gore has proven himself to be an effective leader. Had he chosen to actually lead instead of listening to his ever timid advisors with their continuous attempts to triangulate the polling data, he would have inspired many more people to support him and the Florida outcome likely would have been moot.

    –Had he embraced the active support of Bill Clinton—one of the most gifted campaigners ever—the Florida outcome may well have been moot.

    –Had he backed up the progressive rhetoric of his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention by choosing a progressive running mate instead of Joe Lieberman–whose repugnance while inchoate at time was still apparent (e.g., his unabashed membership in the DLC and his self righteous and sanctimonious finger wagging during the Clinton impeachment)—I and countless other progressives would have voted for him and the ultimate result likely would have been a landslide victory.

    In November 2002 Gore gave an interview on NPR in which he–to his everlasting credit–accepted full responsibility for his defeat. What a concept. If he is able to move on, why can’t the rest of you?

    Here are some more facts, inconvenient and painful though they may be to Democratic partisans:

    –More people in Florida voted for Gore than for Bush (welcome to Camp Reality, indeed). Reporters working for a consortium of news outlets, led by the Miami Herald, recounted the Florida ballots under a variety of recount schemes during the spring and summer of 2001 to test the veracity of the ultimate outcome. While Bush prevailed in the partial recounts proposed by the candidates in the weeks following the election, a total state recount showed that Gore actually won Florida, and thus had enough electoral votes to legitimately claim the presidency. Just as these results were to be released publicly and prominently, 9/11 occurred and the papers decided to bury the story (at the time, this seemed like the right thing to do). To repeat, s-l-o-w-l-y, Al Gore won the popular vote in Florida. Had he not listened to his unbelievably incompetent campaign staff, had he demanded a total state recount–the only rational scheme in the sense of fairness to the voters of Florida–he now would be president (and we’d only be fighting one war). Instead, the Gore campaign enabled the Bush machine’s theft of that state’s election. Again, Gore accepts responsibility for this, why can’t you?

    –Over 20,000 registered Democrats voted for Bush in Florida. Why are “Naderites” more responsible than these shining examples of humanity?

    –Three other left of center candidates ran on the Florida ballot that year. Each received more than the 537 vote difference between Gore and Bush. Why aren’t you all deriding that dirty fucking hippy John Hagelin for the present state of affairs?

    –Bob Somerby has documented ad nauseum the role the political press played in misrepresenting Gore, likely costing him many thousands of votes. What’s that? I’m not hearing any amens?

    –Oh yeah. Remember early January 2001 when a joint session of congress met to validate the electoral college result? Credible allegations of African American voter disenfranchisement in Florida were officially raised by members of the Congressional Black Caucus—allegations that put the ultimate result in serious doubt. They asked the Senate to second a motion to invalidate to electoral outcome and to investigate the allegations. All that was needed was for one Democratic senator to sign on. Remind me what happened again. Those paragons of courage bit their tongues, sat on their hands and meekly watched as Bush had his way. (On this last point, I guess some things never change.) Why isn’t the blame for Bush placed at the feet of Tom Daschle who brokered the self-serving deal the Senate Democratic Caucus made with their Republican counterparts in return for their silence?

    In the more than six years this “debate” has limped along, no one taking the anti-Nader position has been able to answer these questions. The “it’s all Ralph Nader’s fault” argument simply cannot be supported logically, so give it up already.

    As for the actual subject of the above post, Katovsky speaks for himself. The fact that Gore would have been a better alternative to Bush does not mean he’d have made a good president, or would make one today. I can’t believe the number of self identified progressives that can’t seem to recall that Gore ran on an all DLC ticket. Without doubt, President Gore would have gleefully sucked up to the Wall Street monied elite and the Beltway national security elite. It would have been more of the same (albeit executed slightly more competently). Let Al Gore remain a public intellectual where he’s actually doing some good.

  • I never said people who voted for Ralph Nader 2000 was responsible for Gore losing Florida in 2000. It cannot be denied that if even 1% of the people who voted for Nader in FL in 2000 could have brought themselves to hold their noses and vote for Gore, despite his obvious ideological impurities, we would not be having this conversation. But hey, if they say they just couldn’t go there then who am I to say differently? A person has to have principles.

    Heck, I don’t even blame that Supreme Court for the 2000. The newspaper consortium study of the Florida 2000 ballots pretty well proved to my satisfaction that if the Gore campaign had gotten everything they were asking for — i.e., a hand recount of the 4 most populous and Democratic Florida counties under the standards being used at the time — he still would have lost by a couple hundred votes. So in the end it didn’t matter what the Supreme court did.

    Nope. I don’t blame any of the above for any of the above. I have made my peace with the 2000 presidential election. Democrats lost. We should try not to do that. But I don’t blame the 2000 Naderites for Gore’s loss. It’s all the 2000 Naderites out there right now suddenly pining for Al Gore — yes, that Al Gore — to run again this year that I want to smack. Talk about a whining bunch of hypocrites.

  • “It’s all the 2000 Naderites out there right now suddenly pining for Al Gore — yes, that Al Gore — to run again this year that I want to smack. Talk about a whining bunch of hypocrites.”

    Agreed.

  • The bouncing from Nader to Gore is just a symptom of “savior politics”. Some people don’t want a “chief executive” – they want a “savior”. In ’92 the “savior” was Ross Perot (’til he proved himself nuttier than a squirrel’s safety deposit box). In ’80 it was Reagan (it was Reagan in ’76 too, but he got squeezed out by the GOP machine even as the “base” demanded his nomination). In 2000 it was Nader on the left and, surprisingly to me anyway, George W Bush on the right. Now (at least on the left side of the aisle) it’s swung to Gore. Not Gore the man but Gore the symbol of the environmentalist movement.

    Personally, I don’t think Gore is going to run even if drafted. His cult of personality isn’t as large or as fervent as even Nader’s, and nowhere near the level of Reagan’s circa 1980. That’s not enough to propel you into the White House through populism, and as soon as Gore starts making a rational case for his presidency he starts to be evaluated again as “Gore the man” instead of the symbol – and the press begins their savaging again as they did in 2000 (and as Bob Somersby chronicled over at dailyhowler.com).

  • Why do people think that those who voted for Nader in 2000 would otherwise have voted for Gore? Are there solid data for this supposition? Keep in mind that Gore (and the Democrat establishment) chose a right-wing nutbag as the VP candidate to ensure a Florida win and to capture “values” voters. Since we’re playing hypothetical history here, I would not want to imagine our 9/11 response with Lieberman in office.

  • “Why do people think that those who voted for Nader in 2000 would otherwise have voted for Gore? Are there solid data for this supposition?”

    I dunno. Is there solid data to support the supposition that there are a lot of people who think that those who voted for Nader in 2000 would otherwise have voted for Gore? I don’t think that. I think they would have stayed home and sulked.

  • Why do people think that those who voted for Nader in 2000 would otherwise have voted for Gore? Are there solid data for this supposition? — Guy from Jersey, @25

    Don’t have any solid data, just a story 🙂

    A gal of my acquaintance, from (New) Jersey, recently disclosed that she’d voted for Nader. Since she’s, otherwise, a self-defined Democrat, I was flabbergasted to hear it. But, apparently, she was the mirror image of Astrogeek, @13. He voted for Nader in Arizona, where he figured his vote wouldn’t matter, because Gore would have lost there anyway. So it was “safe” to express his disgust with the “establishment politics”. She came to her “expression of disgust” vote from diametrically opposing position: she voted in New Jersey, where her vote wouldn’t matter, because Gore was going to win anyway, so it was “safe” to vote for Nader.

    I have to wonder… If people assume, at the outset, that their vote won’t matter at all, why did they even bother to trek to the polling booth? November tends to be ugly, even in the sunniest of the States, and then you may have to wait your turn, standing in line, outside… Neither Astrogeek nor my friend, it seems, actually expected Nader to win; it was all for the personal satisfaction of “venting at the booth”. And I have to wonder… How many others thought the same way? Making the already small margin razor-thin in the process, allowing for the subsequent stealing of the elections?

  • Oh come on, the article this great debate was based on was completely useless. What, TWO former Nader voters are trying to draft Gore now? Big deal! How about an actual poll or something before people get all worked up about whether these people should be mocked or appreciated. I bet I could find at least two former Bush voters who now genuinely love Stephen Colbert. Big deal! How about the number of people who want Nader to run again (whether they were for him in 2000 and 2004 or not), you can see the BEGINNING of their numbers at http://www.draftnader.org ! Run, Ralph Run!!!

  • The Astrogeek asks if any electoral votes were shifted to Bush because of votes for Nader.

    Yes. In New Hampshire. If Nader had not been on the ballot in NH Gore would have won the state. Florida in 2000 was going to Bush no matter what. The fix was in. Florida has been rigging elections against blacks and Democrats forever. There’s no such thing as an honest election in Florida, and maybe not anywhere else either. We need international observers.

  • Gore lost becasue Bush cheated in Florida and elsewhere. The majority of voters voted for Gore..
    To imply that Gore lost becasue Americans legally cast their votes for the candidate of their choice is just more vomiting up of the Bushies disgusting propaganda.
    Shame on this site to support those lies.

  • They want redemption? Let ’em go to a priest and beg redemption. The store is closed now. Go home, Ralphophants….

  • Neither Astrogeek nor my friend, it seems, actually expected Nader to win; it was all for the personal satisfaction of “venting at the booth”.

    “Venting at the booth” is the most irrelevant form of political expression we have in this country, yet there has been a lot of effort made to convince us that casting “protest ballots” are an effective means of registering disapproval with the choice of candidates available. It really isn’t – protest ballots in the US are basically a sop thrown to the disaffected to give them a psychological crutch to keep them believing that the system isn’t totally broken and to keep them from getting active and agitating for real change.

    In countries where voting is mandatory, protest ballots (or spoiled ballots) can be effective because they actually DO give a measure of the dissatisfaction of the populace with their choices. In the US, where 60% of the eligible population often decides to not bother to vote, protest ballots are a blip.

    A better (and more effective) form of protest is to get active in one of your local party structures, build up a group of like-minded folks who want change and get them to join with you. Take over one of the local parties through sheer numbers. That’s a lot of work – much more than casting a protest ballot once every four years – but it’s also more likely to reap benefits instead of just making you feel better about not having voted for the guy who’s currently screwing things up.

  • Maybe Gore took a look at the Dimocrats he would have to work with and decided that he could get more done in the international arena, where the spineless sellouts we have for “leadership” aren’t running the show.

    If I was Al Gore I wouldn’t want to be president with Nancy and Harry’s stupid asses “on my side” either.

    That said, I still hold out a small glimmer of hope that Gore will announce a new type of campaign and run for president. He hasn’t said he won’t, and he did that in 2004. Why hasn’t he made that statement?

  • I forgot to add that one of Nader’s most powerful points was that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties. I disagree with the dollar amount, but the sentiment has gained credence ever since the invertibrate Democrats have taken back congress. They suck heartily, they haven’t done what we hired them to do, and they are poster children for a third party. The brutal reality that smacks this meme down is that the Republicans obviously suck way, way more.

  • Don’t forget about the GOP who supported Nader in 2004!! I am one among many who supported Ralph Nader for three elections who are now proudly supporting RON PAUL for president.

  • NonyNony,

    You’re right when you write, “A better (and more effective) form of protest is to get active in one of your local party structures, build up a group of like-minded folks who want change and get them to join with you. Take over one of the local parties through sheer numbers.”

    But this takes time. In the meanwhile, we’re under no obligation to support the party at the national level, particularly given the utterly corrupt state of the major party duopoly.

    I’m not accepting the realities of our political system? Damn straight, I’m not. Had our forebearers accepted the political realities facing them, we’d all be singing God Save the Queen every April 21st.

    • Comments are closed.