An Unreasonable Man

Well, I think he has similiar views as Michael Moore, but I think Ralph is a little more real. And Ralph doesn't go for the grand dramatic that Mike does. Of course, i mean, after all, Michael Moore was a Nader Raider.

Ralph seems to be more calculated. I dunno I've always found to him to be articulate if not a bit frustrated that nobody seems to get where he's coming from. I guess I respect that he's always been true to himself and what he believes in. Does that make him an Ego Maniac? Perhaps. Maybe he's just an ego maniac I agree with. As opposed to Mr. W. I suppose that's why so many on the right despise him.

Well, it seems to me that there were a lot of reasons Gore lost Florida. Nader played a part, I do not deny. But what followed was a total waffle by the democrats. There were serious problems with the voting down there . . . and the dems just swallowed it.

oh well.

I admit, Ralph is not exactly Gorgeous, But you don't think he is president material because of that? His looks? I would take an ugly bloke who made sense any day over what we have to choose from for this election.

Which really makes me wonder how W won? He's funny looking AND stupid. How could the ever Handsome Al Gore lose to that chump? oh wait. I forgot. It's Nader's fault.

...has nothing to do with his lack of pretty, nor is that the standard I have ever used in voting. You thought Gore was handsome?

Something in his bearing implies to me a lack of emotional maturity, mental health, or perhaps just emotional lability. There is something about maniacal absolutism that makes me underwhelmed with the presenter, no matter how important the message. He demands recognition without criticism and reacts petulantly when he does not get it. I also see his experience being largely associated with product and liability laws, not foreign policy. An ideal presidential candidate would also show some sign that they can have a long-term adult relationship. Nader should stick with going single-mindedly after the issue of the day, as he has skill with enacting change in this way.

I cannot explain W, nor do I fathom any support for him. He is in my opinion stupid, criminal and the worst president ever. It did not take a lot of imagination to see what another Bush-family-war-machine president would do for the country.

I thought Al Gore was a good man with a fatal flaw of refusing to fight harder for his popular vote win. Gore is culpable for our current state of affairs, but so is Nader. He ran a largely symbolic campaign with no hope of a win. He knew what he was doing, this is why he went to the republicans to help him with his run, after the green party dumped him. It became all about what Ralph Nader wanted, not what was best for the country at the time. His best position is as a consumer advocate, not really the purview of the office of the president.

I have been know to champion lost causes. I can't help it. I love the underdog usually because the undergod is who I truly believe in. whoa. undergod? that too. Yes, i believe in Satan.

The sad thing is: Looks matter. I think Al Gore is handsome compared to Nader or Bush. Other than that I think he looks like a Dweeb and I can't stand Tipper. I'm still pissed at her about the PMRC. Another reason I couldn't vote for Al.

OH for those of you who still blame Nader exclusively. Try reading this

Tell us how you really feel.

Does the man really deserve to be dragged to his death??

I mean, it would seem to me that people blame Ralph Nader for everything that has happened since the 2000 election. Let's not forget that the democrats had chances to stand up to Bush but have continued to let him get his way.

That's why I appreciate Ralph. He stood alone for what he thought was right no matter what the consequence. He didn't cave to any party lines. He didn't suck up to anybody for money. I give it up to the man and I wish there were more people like him.

I despise Bush, but I cannot hold Ralph Nader 100% accountable for what happened in Florida. If Gore didn't run such a horrible campaign, maybe he would have won. I could say the same for Kerry.

It's just so easy to blame it all on Nader. As the campaign committees would have it, he was a non-issue. Which is why he wasn't allowed to debate.

me as interesting that he pointed out corporate ills vs. the interests of consumers, but largely in books that were sold "for profit." It seems like a fairly precarious perch from which to spout off about profit motives.

So I guess he was supposed to work on these books and then give them away? Pay for the publishers and promotion himself? You could always rent them at the library.

Anyhow, we do live in a capitalist society. Just about anybody who is anybody has released a book and I'm pretty sure they all hope to make a "profit".

He did more than just earn money by writing books. He help found the EPA, OSHA and other public interest organizations. These groups went on to passing the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Freedom of Information Act among others. I think that those are some pretty good accomplishments.

After he sued GM for spying on him and trying to smear him, he put the money back into more programs.

I just think people are awfully harsh on the man when I feel he's done a heckuvalot more good than bad. I mean, I've heard some people want to drag him around from the back of corvair.

That is an impossible standard, Ru. For anyone.

I just bought a bunch of books that donate the profits to things like putting girls in Afghanistan into school.

I am still not personally all against the man. I do prefer a standard employing fair balance. He is neither all bad or all good. I think he does suffer from a bit of overdeveloped ego. Some people may mean well but are really motivated by a pathological need to be the center of attention.

At least at his core, his pathological need to be the center of attention is done through trying to help people. I don't think he lives extravagantly or anything like that. Mostly it seems like his profits go right back into his organizations.

I mean, lots of people write books at least he wrote books to educate people on consumer rights.

I would take Nader's ego over Bush and his chronies' ego any day of the week.

I suppose maybe you could liken Nader to someone like Yassir Arafat. In the end, it wasn't about the cause it was about Arafat's ego.

Hm. Perhaps I can see your point. In the beginning he was all about helping people. But now, his ego is bigger than what he is trying to do. Or some such thing.

Still, I love the man and have to believe his good has far outweighed his bad.

I still believe to achieve some of things he has achieved you have to have a large ego though.

While I agree with Outlaw for the most part, I also understand Rob's point of view. However, while most of us lucid ones knew how shitty a president Bush W. would be (even before airplane attacks, my brother had said that this was the first time he was ever ashamed of who we called our president), we had absolutely no idea how absolutely pathetic (and criminal) he really would be.

Damn hard to lay that guilt on all on Nader's shoulders. Hard to lay any guilt on him at all, really. Much, much, much more of the guilt lies with the media conglomerates and talking heads (and there were a heck of a lot of them, too).

So, I side with Outlaw on this one.

Little doubt that big Ralph's super suits would protect him from road rash. But I appreciate the irony of death by Corvair.

Have you ever lost a competitive game of Risk because the player to your left made poor, ego- driven choices, thus empowering another player to swoop- in and steal the game? Sure you have, but America is a "free to advance selfish agendas" country.

Nader is skilled at wrestling alligators, but I just don't see that "leader" quality either--- Nor do I think he ever expects to actually win. I like the idea of splintering support to more political parties, regardless of how inconvenient or ill- timed. Nader is a capable mouthpiece, and his wise shadow is probably still up to the task of staining the 2- party system and yanking some fractional percentage of voters.

P.S. I thought more registered Republicans voted for Ralph than Dems? I thought Ralph also "pushed Gore toward more progressive positions", ultimately getting Gore more votes?

P.S.S. Anyone want to compare the egos of Gore versus Nader?

Good points, Reg. Personally, I have no beef with Nader. He has his one issue, and uses the elections to help grab the spotlight for it. Good for him. I cannot stand, however, when democrats whinge and complain about all the things that went wrong in Gore v. Bush. Yes, Florida was a screwup, and odds are good that Gore won. Gore and Co. did not make a stand and fight it. Yes, Nader pulled *some* of the dem vote away from Gore. He pulled a chunk of the GOP vote away from Bush too. Cope.
And to be perfectly honest, the fact that the election came down so evenly that 3% of the vote in one state mattered this much means that the Democrats ran an awfully shitty campaign, to have lost to the Great Decider. As far as I'm concerned, losing to Bush is on their shoulders, and no one else's.

I think Nader has more than one issue to promote. If anybody ever got to hear what he really believes in they might actually agree with him. He makes sense to me. I think people are just so used to the bullshit that most candidates spout that of course Nader sounds crazy. He's discussing real issues in a real context and he is just as frustrated by these things as you or I.