[Vision2020] Romney drops out!?

[Garrett Clevenger]

Thanks for replying, Ted.

I do think you are unfairly blaming Nader for Bush
being anointed prez.  Nader didn't "sabotage" the
election.  Many people "sabotaged" that election in
ways more real and ill-intended.  All this shows is
that it's easy to want a scapegoat.

Why not blame Nader for 9/11?  We all know Gore would
have heeded the NIA saying Bin Laden wanted to use
planes as a weapon!  9/11 and the terrible aftermath
never would have happened if Nader had not pursued the
presidency, right? (despite the fact that the neocon
agenda was set last century)

Whose to say what would have happened if the Supreme
Court had a one vote difference.  Perhaps Gore would
have been our dream prez.  Nader was right, though, to
challenge the 2 party system that is strangling our
country.  

Gore had a chance to bring Nader on board (though I
don't know if Gore offered Nader a place in his
potential admin)  Nader would have been a good of
choice as any to work in Gore's admin.  I believe that
without the type of reform Nader is talking about, we
won't address the issues that need addressing.

There are all kinds of reasons Bush has been in office
for 7 years.  Kathrine Harris, Kenneth Blackwell,
electronic voting machines, and the Supreme Court,
being 4 way more major reasons.  

If Repubs want to give money to Nader, I don't blame
him for taking it.  All it goes to show is that Repubs
were willing to do anything to get the presidency. 
Nader, on the other hand, was able to pay to get his
message out and divert that money from perhaps worse
purposes.  I doubt he assumed he would actually win,
and I don't think his intent was to be a spoiler.  In
fact, how can you spoil a spoiled system?

No one is entitled to be prez, despite our 2 party
system.  A healthy democracy allows for expression of
more then 2 views.  Bush being "elected" is a symptom
of a broken system.  Just look at what happened in
2004, and there was no major 3rd party candidate.

If you want to blame anyone for Bush still being here,
blame the people who voted for Bush in 2004.  Though,
maybe, considering both Kerry and Bush were member of
Yale's Skull and Bones, it only goes to show that
things got worse with the 2 party system that if
people would have heeded Nader we may not have to
suffer under.

If Gore had been as candid as he seems to be now, the
Nader effect would have been even smaller than it was
in 2000.  People probably would have responded to Gore
more favorably.  But maybe Nader is right that it took
Bush to show how screwed up the system is.  It's easy
for Gore to be Gore now, though, after seeing that
Gore bore some responsibility for not winning.

If we ever needed a Green candidate, it is now,
because it seems to me we are heading to a bad place
and I believe the Green philosophy will be a big
solution to solving our problems.

No person is perfect and perhaps there are better
people to continue to fight for the betterment of our
world than Nader.

Obama has a good talk, very idealistic, and it seems
to me it would serve him well to have someone who will
put his idealism into action.  Nader has proven that
he understands how corruption is eating our world and
that there are solutions.  What better person to have
help "bridge the divide" Obama talks about than
someone who has been a public watchdog for 40 years
who can hold those corrupt accountable so that the
good people from all walks of life can look forward to
building a better world?  Kind of like good cop/ bad
cop...

I'm sure most people would agree with Nader's record
if they knew it, despite being either Repub or Demo. 
Nader works to prevent abuse of people and the
environment, and who doesn't like that except
uncompassionate, greedy people?

If I can have a second pick at VP, then how about Brad
Pitt?

He's smart and his politics, from what I can tell, are
good.  Hey if we can have an action figure Governor,
actor President, and Dan Quayle (anyone remember him?)
VP, why not BP for VP under BO?

Just think, in 10 years we could have President Pitt!)

Then again, why should I care?  Can we really trust
anybody?  Obviously, Ted's not the only person still
hung up against Nader, despite the fact that I assume
Ted appreciates the work he's done.  I do think Nader
deserves more respect then being called a "terrible"
choice for VP.

Are there reasons, despite the anger you feel towards
Nader for being a spoiler, that you don't like Nader? 
Specifically, his work and stance...

Obama's campaign is about hope, so I'm putting my
hopes out there.  I don't want an empty President who
won't stand up for the needed change because he wants
to appease everybody.

Who do you hope he'll pick and how will that person
enhance the change needed?

gclev

--- Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/8/08, Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Edwards would be good, as I like what he says, but
> my
> > preference would be Ralph Nader, who may very well
> > campaign for President.  Appealing to Progressives
> is
> > good with me, despite whatever baggage Nader may
> have
> > (and really, who doesn't have baggage?)
> >
> > Nader has a record of working on changing America
> for
> > the better for 40 years.  He is well connected to
> the
> > activist community, and engaging activists is key
> to
> > changing our country from it's disastrous course. 
> An
> > Obama/Nader ticket sounds sweet to me.
> >
> > gclev
> 
> 
> Many progressives begged Nader to drop out of the
> 2000 presidential race,
> due to the potential of splitting the Democratic
> vote harming Gore's
> chances.  We all know the result.  Nader helped put
> Bush in the White House
> in 2000.  Nader's Florida votes alone gave Florida's
> electoral votes to
> Bush, as the vote count actually was counted, though
> we also know that
> absent illegal voter disenfranchisement,
> deliberately pushed by Florida's
> Secretary of State and Bush supporter Katherine
> Harris, Gore would have won
> Florida, even with Nader's participation.
> 
> Republican operatives were running ads supporting
> Nader's 2000 candidacy,
> knowing this would hurt Gore.  And Nader knew this.
> 
> Nader even argued that a Bush presidency might be
> good for the nation in the
> long run, given that Bush would create such a back
> lash against his policies
> that progressives in the long run would become more
> unified and motivated.
> 
> But as far as I am concerned, given the damage of
> the Bush administration,
> Nader's 2000 presidential run was an irresponsible
> application of idealistic
> principles over sensible practical politics,
> resulting in wounds that may
> not heal for decades.  The pending US Supreme Court
> nominations in 2000
> alone were enough of a reason for Nader to withdraw
> to allow Gore the best
> chance of a win.  Nader and everyone knew there was
> zero chance of Nader
> taking the White House.  His presidential run did
> not even result in a
> stronger party base supporting Nader or those who
> support his policies. His
> supporters are more off the radar now than in 2000.
> 
> I recall hearing from Nader supporters in 2000 how
> Gore and Bush both
> represented corporate big money, and entrenched
> elitist Washington power,
> and were not that different.  Well, we have seen
> that however much this was
> true, there were substantial differences between
> Gore and Bush that would
> have taken the USA in very different directions on
> critical issues, the
> invasion of Iraq and climate change, for example.  I
> do not believe Gore
> would have supported the invasion and occupation of
> Iraq, and he would have
> began to address climate change while the Bush
> administration was in denial,
> backing big oil and energy interests, who did not
> want to address climate
> change for obvious financial reasons.
> 
> Nader would be a terrible choice for a VP candidate
> under Obama.  I lost
> respect for him as a politician after his sabotage
> of the 2000 presidential
> election.  This showed he is not willing to
> compromise when the overall good
> of the nation is at stake.
> 
> Ted Moffett
>