This guy is like a non-stop attack machine

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i9H ... NGpatkR5_A




AND I LOVE IT! This guy is THE man when it comes to exposing mainstream democrats.

 

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/po ... 02-08.html


6%! He isn't backing down and he's gaining votes. WOW. If Obama keeps going to the right, Nader has the chance to beat Ross Perot's 17% in 1992. Obama is in huge trouble.

 

I have always liked Nader and appreciate his opinions. However, it is time for him to stop running for President. He could work with whoever gets elected rather than work against both of them now.

 

But to work for people he doesn't like would go against everything he believes in. I feel that he does more good this way. More people get to see what he says when he's running and get exposed to radical leftism.

 

Guys whole candidacy depends on painting everything as hopeless and the country as a cesspit so its not particularly surprising that he's like a non-stop attack machine. Couldn't help but notice that you didn't post his lamenting over Obama "talking white". Seems Corporate America isn't the only group old Ralph likes to place in a stereotypical box.

 

I agree. With everyone.

Ralph Nader is a valuable tool and always has been, in every meaning assigned to the phrase.

He makes me feel smarter than I really am... because I can take almost any one of his pet causes, which indeed have at their core -TRUTH-, and argue the opposite conclusion. Starting with 'Unsafe at any Speed'.

I actually was a member of an ad hoc Nader Focus Group in the mid-nineties. The purpose of Nader, like most HONEST Liberals, is like a grain of sand to an oyster. The oyster doesnt end up containing a pebble, does it.

See my sig, below, and substitute 'Consumer Advocacy' for 'politics'.

 

I worked for one of Ralph's organizations when I was in college, MASSPIRG, a largely student run canvassing group.

Our office (Boston) was the biggest in the country, and one day I got to meet ol' Ralph himself. He truly is a man of principle and has the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him much in my older years, but his stature is truly admirable.

That doesn't mean he should be president. I think of two things that have happened in the last 8 years. One is 11 September. Suffice to say that you will have to pardon me for not having enough faith in Ralph to lead our country in a time of war -- and at that time we did not ask for war, it found us.

A second instance was the 2000 election, as close as it was. If Ralph did not run, Gore would have won, because most of his voters would have otherwise voted for Gore. People remember what hapened in Florida, but what happened in Oregon, West Virginia, and Tennessee, all states that went to Bush, was also noteworthy. Ralph running was not the only factor, but if Gore had ran a better campaign and won even one of those three states, he would have been president. If he wasn't on the ticket, (and if Gore would have ran a better campaign) there would have been much celebrating on the left then. The Democrats losing West Virginia, especially, was just inexcusable from a campaigning perspective.

Here's to Ralph continuing to be a pain in the butt to both sides of the aisle.

 

Aside: Gore might have won Tennessee if he'd run a better campaign? You sure about that? Refer to Don's piece on Jesse Helms, and think of Helms running for Pres and carrying his state.. or Metzenbaum carrying Ohio. I guarandamntee you, Metz would not carry Ohio.

heh..

 

OK, maybe not... However, how did he manage not to carry his home state? (I know, hire a bunch of pointy headed Beltway staffers to run his campaign rather than listen to some voices from Knoxville or Nashville). That is my point I guess.

 

I dont think so.. it's one thing to keep electing a lib senator, another to let him run the whole country.
To explain that.. consider Gore was Knoxville's and summat Nashville's senator. Alexander and Thompson, the Sen for the rest of Tenn.
Metz was Cleveland/NE OH/Columbus Senator and the REST of Ohio let them have that.. I know I voted against Metz but I'm a Conservative, the kind who was happy to see Dewine and Taft given the boot, not just Republican.
And it ends up being for the same reasons we postulate about Nader. Turns out the Tennesseans were right, doesnt it! "Played on Our Fears", my ass!

 

He would've won Tennessee had he or his campaign spent any amount of time campaigning there. Governor McWherter begged him to spend more time in Tennessee. Gore didn't get down there himself until the final weeks of his campaign.

By focusing on Shrum's Northeast/West Coast/Rust Belt and Florida strategy, Gore ignored the small states in the Southeast he could've won (Tennessee, Arkansas, and West Virginia.). Bush was in all those states running a strong campaign. Tennessee Democrats traditionally rely on surviving the arse-kicking they get in East Tennessee by getting out the vote (alive and...before era of mass communications...otherwise) in Middle and West Tennessee. These are old regional rivalries dating back to the Civil War when East Tennessee sided with the Union while the other regions went with the CSA.

Gore inexplicably listened to Shrum and ignored the political calculus in his own state. McWherter was telling him he was getting clobbered in East Tennessee and needed to get down there and campaign or it would be lost. Gore ignored the man until it was too late.

Of course, it doesn't help when you listen to Shrum and buy into the logic that a President with a 55-60% popularity rating is someone whose policies you run away from. Clinton would've helped Gore in West Virginia and certainly would've taken Arkansas from Dubya had Gore asked him to campaign forcefully for him. Any of those states would've won Gore the election.

Gore needed to run the campaign Bush 41 ran in '88. Instead, he got caught up with the folks who've lost Presidential elections for the Democrats time and again and ran one of the worst campaigns you'll ever see in our lifetime.