This is the big joke about globilization: we can´t allow countries into our markets who have leap-frogged over all of our safety, environmental, and worker laws.

Sorry, I can't stand this guy. He can slam Bush all he wants but I still lay a large part of the blame for Bush's initial supposed election to President on his own ego-maniacal quest to make a political stand by running for President in 2000. No, I don't think that it is any given that people who voted for Nader then would have voted for Gore had he not run. What galls me about Nader is that his campaign was predicated on perpetuating a lie that Republicans and Democrats are basically the same party so you will get the same policies regardless of which mainstream candidate you vote for. Bush seemed, to people who didn't read his rhetoric too closely, to be a moderate republican. Gore seemed to be a moderate deomcrat. These are completely innacurate categorizations but that was the way many people saw them. You had to go beyond the 20-second sound bites and the news headlines but things were going pretty well for the USA in 1999 so a heck of a lot of Americans didn't When Nader began making his noise about Reps and Dems being virtually the same, it didn't necessarilly drive people to his camp but it made a lot of somewhat complacent democrats chose not to vote at all. Forget the number of votes that Nader got, the simple obfuscation of a political difference between candidates undoubtedly kept many Americans away from the polls altogether. If Nader wants to try and start a viable 3rd party, let him get his inexperienced ass out there and run for congress, or possibly an up-for-grabs senate seat! Remember what a lot of power Senator Jeffords suddenly had when he defected from the Republicans and became an independent soon after Bush's taking office? Nader could have really had some sway and put his money where his mouth is on all of his political stands. Instead, he revealed himself to be the egotistical embodiment of a sensationalist author (I love what he has done for consumer safety but to be honest he has always been a sensationalist and built his organization around his own cult of personality). As far as his over-simplifications about congress having resolutions about with-holding their own health care till every American has it too or requiring their service age children to serve in the military, the man sounds absolutely nuts! Those are easy-answer sound bites more befitting a mirror image Rush Limbaugh than an intelligent rational man that he pretends to be. Ralph Nader sucks and he's done a lot to help Bush to try and destroy America. He has no political credibility in my eyes anymore.

Well Kelly, he doesn't need "political credibility" now, since he's not running for office.

As for blaming him for the Dem's 2000 loss--you should blame the Dems, for not saying the things he was saying that lured voters to him, and also for not standing up to what really cost them the election, the theft of it by the Repugs and their Supreme Court toadies.

It sucks when people can't let a person's words get past the bitter impression they've formed of that person. Can't you think when you're hearing someone speak? Nader's analysis is spot-on! He spells out so well the thoughts of most progressives.

Finally, who knows, really, what sort of president Gore would've been? Given the corporatized pressures on those in office, who's to say he too wouldn't have led us into a mess? Probably not Iraq, true, but don't base your sense of loss on what Gore promised he would do.

Oh and Norm, it's "country's."

I've never understood the people who blame Nader for the outcome of the election.

You need MORE people like Nader, not less!

Why can't you people see that the problem with your system is the Democratic and Republican parties themselves? They are in cahoots - their backers are the same people - it's an illusion of choice that you're being offered.

We need to get back to the original model of democracy that the Greeks used, although clearly without the slavery and with equal voting rights. :-)

Still, I like the idea of every citizen being involved in governance.

Nader does share some blame for the 2000 election, not just in Florida, but other states where the vote was very close.  I agree with Kelly, that Nader's major sin is that he labels the Republicans and Democrats as basically slaves to big business and special interest.  In some ways Nader's idiocy will be remembered not for Iraq, but for the Republicans refusing to abide to the Kyoto Agreement on Greenhouse gases.

Nader is a Washington Lobbyist. He lives in a multi million dollar mansion, treats his staff and the PIRGs like slave labor. There is a reason why many people who have worked over the years with Nader have been alienated from him. He is a ego maniac.

He lives in a multi million dollar mansion<\i>

Is it a crime for a liberal to make money? People who make this argument should then believe that it is impossible for conservatives to be anything but super rich.

if ralph nader cared about anything other than himself he would run for lower office. instead, he tries to make a name for himself every four years by trying to be a spoiler in the presidential race. ralph nader is a craven, despicable, rotten piece of shit.

I've never understood the people who blame Nader for the outcome of the election

well, until we have election reform here in the U.S., third parties result in a less than desired result.

It's already been proven that Nader didn't affect the election turn out.

It really sucks that we can only fantasize having an intelligent leader like Ralph.

Ralph Nader did not cost Gore an election. Gore's prissy campaign cost Gore the election. If Gore had run on eight prior years of relative decency in this country, he would have wiped the floor with Monkey Boy. Instead, he ran away from Bill Clinton, he distanced himself from any thing that Dems had done well, and ran a completely obtuse and defensive campaign. If there's one thing Repubs can do, it's campaign. Gore didn't learn that lesson in 2000. So no, Nader did not cost Gore the campaign. Gore cost Gore the campaign.

I like Nader as a consumer advocate, but in the world of politics, he's mostly a flame thrower. The "spot-on" characterization of his comments applies to the 1st half of this conversation.

There's a ubiquitous bumper sticker that says "Somebody else for president." You could sport that on your car for years. Since 99, it seems that has been Nader's political agenda.

Nader did not cost the election. Why is it that so many people attack a man like Nader for daring to do the very thing that we than advocate for: stepping out of the existing system.

We all know that the democrats and republicans are essentially the same party at this point. People like Nader try to work outside the republi-crat system that has existed for so long and that we are all unhappy with. So why blame him? Nader was not what cost the election. What cost the 2000 and 2004 election is misinformation, ignorance and stupidity and the apathy of the american people. In a country where less than 65% of the public votes for president, how could we expect anything less than a victory by a man like Bush.

I have no problem with a third, fouth or fifth party. I have a problem when they try to begin at the highest office in the land instead of at the grass roots, or at least in the congress. Third party candidates have tended to be ego-maniacs. Ross Perot sure was a good promoter of Ross Perot but did he ever try and get some people that shared his political views into the house or senate? No. Neither did Nader. Trying to reform a political system by running only for the Presidency is trying to rebuild a junker classic car by only putting on a new paint job. The whole car needs to be restored piece by piece and the last thing you do is the paint. So too with reforming the US political system. There's a hell of a lot to do for reform before a third party should set its sights on the white house.

I thought that was really uncomfortable to watch, mainly because of Ralph Nader's procrustean attempts to plug his book. It's like he'd be in the middle of a long paragraph, and then all of a sudden come to the realization that he needed to plug his book again.

Also, can anyone think of a LESS INTERESTING premise for a book than the parenting methods of Ralph Nader's parents? BARF

Carrying on, while we can all agree that Democrats are generally a disappointment, you cannot in good faith argue that they are the same as the Republicans.

If Al Gore was President, do you think there would be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, 3k+ dead American soldiers, and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted?

Do you think we'd have Torture as an American value?

Do you think we'd have Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito?

So yes, rail at Democrats for all their failiings: their cowardice and capitulation. But don't you dare say they are the same as the Republicans.

As Kelly outlined, we got George Bush for eight years in large part because of this hypocrite.

Kucinich has said that he would withdraw the U.S. from the WTO and NAFTA. That is the policy that is necessary.

Just a thought, If republicans are running on the platform that government doesn't work, aren't they running for a position that they think shouldn't exist? Are they just running for the political contributions and lobbyist connections they'll recieve once they leave washington? Am i being too cynical?

Willey-no, the fact that they run such incompetent candidates and then wonder why government doesn't work.....or promote an underfunded government and then blame the failure of things on the weakness of government. That's their scam.

I enjoy coming to sites like this one becasue I think they are portals for like minded people who sometimes feel like a minority of decency and logic in a world gone mad, but I can't help wonder when we have people filled with such vitriolic hate towards a man like nader. They come to sites like these as supposed 'liberals' who hate bush and everything he stands for, but reveal their true selves by using a logic in their arguments that completely go against free and democratic society. Nader appears to be nothing but a decent credible man who makes completely valid points and has as much right to run for president as bitter 'kelly' who posts on onegoodmove.org. What I know of this man is that he has fought a good fight most of his life and fought it tirelessly. Calling him an egomaniac is simply that- name calling. If he is an egomaniac what does that make Gore or anyone else who tries top lead us all? To hate him becasue the dumb american so called "liberal" public were f#kwits and split their votes and lost Gore the election is an argument so void of logic it's a mindf#k. How about this: Gore cost Nader the election! It's just a stupid and devoid of logic. And to not see validity in the claim that the Republicans and the Democrats are not that different, requires extrodinary ignorance of the facts and a willfull avoidance of analytical thinking.

Andrew, I never said that Reps and Dems were "not that different", what I said was they are "not the same." Tell me, how many champaign corks do you think would have popped in the oil company and insurance company election parties if Gore had been the winner? Would they have said, "well, they're not that different so I think we have nothing but bright futures ahead of ourselves regardless of who won?" So, you've got a GOP Texas oil man (failed though he might have been) who opposed government regulation of private industry (such as insurance companies) and supports privitization of social security in one camp. On the other side you've got a man who has written two well-received books about environmental protection and the threat of global warming, strongly believes that all Americans should have guaranteed lifetime health care, and that the government has an obligation to its citizens to guarantee that their social security benefits are there for them when they reach retirement age. Does that really sound like the same party to you?? I don't despise Nader, in fact I admire what he has done for consumer safety through the years. This is not an issue about getting your opinions heard in a Presidential race. This was an issue of either taking a step toward a hopeful future or regressively throwing our fate into the hands of monumental capitalism embodied by the GOP. This was not a debate, where making good points can increase the overall knowledge of the participants and viewers. Debates are what they have during the election process. Voting day is not a debate because if your candidate is not the winner, nothing of value in their campaign message is retained. It is trampled to the ground and plowed under, like the dead remains of last year's crop. Did Nader's campaign points or Gore's campaign platform in any way shape the course of the Bush Presidency debacle? Follow the debates and support the candidates who's views you share with all of your heard, mind and vigor but when election day rolls around, vote as though your life and the lives of every human, creature and plant on the planet depends on the outcome because indeed, it may. At the end, if you still voted for Nader over Gore, well thanks for giving us President George Walker Bush. You supported him well!

Well said Kelly. That is what I can not get. People who do not understand the difference between Bush and Gore? If after the last seven years someone can not see a difference, I don't know what to say.

Nader does that in 2000 and then comes back to try to do it again? He can not at that point be said to care for the country at large. Just another ego-maniac, as someone else said.

Kelly,

You are spot on! And I'm glad that there are still lefties around who are not fooled by Nader's trash-republicans-for-three-years-and-trash-democrats-for-one-election-year routine.

Every four years Nader starts blaming Democrats for being the real culprits for the country's problems, justifying his obligatory run for president. And then, when the Republican gets elected and gets to f**k up the country, he goes: Told you these guys are criminals..

Which gets you on Maher's show, I guess.

I am not a Communist. Though if I lived in the US I'd be one out of spite. The China phobia is ridiculous. China moves forward in its own way - they know about Mao's atrocities better than us westerners- in this time and age the dictatorship of the enlightened party elite saves China from getting worse. The pollution and corruption problems mainly come from provinces outside Beijing. And they try to do something about it, and have directives to do so, and have improved...but as even US citiziens know China has a lot of people. And, another point, in no other country in the world do people whine and whinge as much as in the US. There is always some (pre-existing) fad danger (mold, lead, asbestos etc.) to fill up the news instead of real information. Retards.

I am not a Communist. Though if I lived in the US I'd be one out of spite. The China phobia is ridiculous. China moves forward in its own way - they know about Mao's atrocities better than us westerners- in this time and age the dictatorship of the enlightened party elite saves China from getting worse. The pollution and corruption problems mainly come from provinces outside Beijing. And they try to do something about it, and have directives to do so, and have improved...but as even US citiziens know China has a lot of people. And, another point, in no other country in the world do people whine and whinge as much as in the US. There is always some (pre-existing) fad danger (mold, lead, asbestos etc.) to fill up the news instead of real information. Retards.

Well, it must be time for Ralph to profit off of another failed presidential run. I can't admire a man that only runs for president to fatten his wallet. He uses the Green Party, but is not even a member of the Green Party. I don't care what people think about his consumer advocacy and that he drives an old car or rides a bike or hops on a frigging pogo stick. The fact is that everytime he runs for president a new book of his just happens to come out right around the same time. Is it no coincidence that he had a book come out just last year that could use a boost in sales? The man is a complete fraud who USED the Green Party and screwed Al Gore in the process. Maybe Al Gore will let him touch his Nobel Peace Prize and then give him a lesson on how to be a true advocate instead of just an egotistical fraud.