The Ralph Nader Control Panel

October 31, 2000 9:48 AM

The Ralph Nader Control Panel I don't know quite whether to laugh because it's amusing, or to be very, very afraid because it's probably true.
posted by dnash (24 comments total)

It is somewhat amusing although I'm still trying to figure out what it's doing on the Web site of the Freedom Coalition of Lawrence, Kansas when a) They clearly endorse Nader on their Web site b) isn't Kansas the state where Gore asked some of the God Hates Fags staff to run his 1988 election campaign in that state?

It sounds as if someone is a tad bitter that Nader is "taking votes away from Gore." Although the state of CA is now contributing to that fact by closing down a Nader-Gore vote exchange site earlier today.
posted by bkdelong at 10:06 AM on October 31, 2000

pretty lame, dude
posted by snakey at 10:15 AM on October 31, 2000

Who's lame? dnash is lame for posting it? It's a valid point of view, and one I'm beginning to share. I agree with Nader on a lot of things, but I don't think it's worth four years of Bush-Cheney just to get funding for the Green party. The thought of four years of of Bush-Cheney (along with a Republican Congress) terrifies me.
posted by owen at 11:03 AM on October 31, 2000

I'm starting to think four years of Bush-Cheney and a Republican congress is just the thing to finally break America out of the old Reagan spell. Aversion therapy, anyone?

-Mars, tongue in cheek as always
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:06 AM on October 31, 2000

Man, all I know is that if Bush wins, I'm getting back into stand-up comedy.
posted by Optamystic at 11:14 AM on October 31, 2000

Mars' post got me thinking. Who are all you Greens planning on voting for, for congress and other positions? I realize if a Green is running for a seat the choice is obvious, but if it is the big two, do you pick Democrat or abstain? Vote out the incumbent? It seems odd that the Dems would automaticaly get your vote when you have such good reasons for not voting for Gore under any circumstances.
Matt, can you get this spell check put into Blogger? I love it so.
posted by thirteen at 11:27 AM on October 31, 2000

I still think Gore should drop out and throw his support behind Nader. Then we'd have a progressive President that we can *trust* to follow through on the issues and not get waylaid by corporate interests.

And in Texas, we have 3 Green statewide candidates running where no Democrat is. So I'm voting Green in those races. In the Senate race, there's a Democrat running, but he runs every year and doesn't campaign one iota. His name is Gene Kelly, so he gets on the ballot in the primary and wins out over any other candidates that genuinely want to campaign for the seat. And then he sits on his ass and doesn't do a damn thing for the whole election cycle. I'm kind of pissed at him for beating out a Democrat whose primary campaign I worked on very hard, so I don't think I can bring myself to vote for him. I'll probably vote for the Green, Doug Sandage (and against Kay Bailey Hutchison *shudder*). And of course I'm voting for a Green and against a Democrat in the Presidential race. ;-)
posted by veruca at 11:30 AM on October 31, 2000

I love Nader. I think he's a great guy. But one thing I haven't heard discussed, probably because it's so far from the realm of possibility, is what a Nader presidency would be like. Unable to build a constituency out of a House/Senate governed by the two-party system, he'd be the most ineffective president since John F. Kennedy's corpse (and maybe Jimmy Carter, too).
posted by waxpancake at 11:32 AM on October 31, 2000

I'm voting Green when I can, and Democratic for everything else. In case Bush wins, I want a Dem congress to counter him. And if Gore wins he'll be too busy waffling a la Clinton to get anything done even with 2 years of a Dem congress, and the next time the election comes around everyone will vote Republican to balance Gore out.

Here's my pet peeve. Everyone keeps griping at Nader for "taking votes away from Gore". Why isn't anyone railing at Gore for running such an incredibly sh*tty ineffectual campaign? Am I really supposed to feel sorry for Gore because he's being trounced by a moron like Bush? If he loses, it'll be because he's too spineless to make a stand against the Shrubby One, not because Nader stole his thunder-- Gore didn't have any thunder to steal.
posted by wiremommy at 11:34 AM on October 31, 2000

Here's my pet peeve. Everyone keeps griping at Nader for "taking votes away from Gore".

Not to mention the irritating sense of entitlement implied in that assertion.
posted by dcehr at 11:55 AM on October 31, 2000

What waxpancake said. Nader as president would have zero support from Congress - god knows what would happen then. He'd be meaningless - Congress would do whatever they want, he'd veto, they'd override all the time.

What finally turned me against Nader for sure was something I think I read here at MeFi yesterday...that Nader had been asked if, at gunpoint, he had to choose Gore or Bush he'd choose Bush. Which seems so insane to me, Bush being pretty much Nader's opposite, that I figure his motivation really must be sticking it to Gore. If he really wanted what was good for the country, if he wanted to see his policies have a chance, he'd back Gore. Instead he may be sending the country straight to the toilet.
posted by dnash at 11:58 AM on October 31, 2000

Hey owen, I thought the control panel was pretty lame. (though the poster's sense of humor might be called into question) It's just a rabid Gore fan's attempt to marginalize Nader's candidacy, which polled at 9% nationally this week.

The lamest part is that the control panel suggests that Nader doesn't have a position on the environment or health care! Has this person even looked at the issues in the Nader campaign? Nader has addressed all those issues, and more besides.

This control panel is more than an oversimplification, is an outright lie.
posted by snakey at 12:04 PM on October 31, 2000

and it's lame, too.
posted by snakey at 12:07 PM on October 31, 2000

"Nader is polling at a blistering nine percent! Must . . . MARGINALIZE . . . this juggernaut!"

Hmm.
posted by Skot at 12:21 PM on October 31, 2000

There's more to a Nader candidacy than simply getting funding for the Greens. I think part of his antipathy toward Gore and the Democrats is that they've always just assumed that anyone with progressive views would vote Democrat and that they could concentrate on capturing the center. Nader's success shows that Democrats can't ignore the concerns of progressives if they want a majority of the electorate.
posted by straight at 12:37 PM on October 31, 2000

I would like to see the control panel for Al Gore, with unchecked boxes for the drug war, the concentration of corporate power, reducing military spending, labelling of genetically modified foods, and free speech on the internet.
And the hypocrisy level would be set around 5000.
posted by snakey at 12:42 PM on October 31, 2000

Feel free to make one, put it up somewhere, and send a copy to the guy who made Nader's CP. Exchange of views and all that.
posted by darukaru at 1:09 PM on October 31, 2000

I am going to try to post a quote from Ghandi with a sincere lack of irony. Let's see if I can do it.

First the ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.


posted by capt.crackpipe at 1:27 PM on October 31, 2000

I didn't catch that quote about Nader voting for Bush at hypothetical gunpoint. But his answer's not so strange: Nader's lifelong business has been consumer advocacy. Under Bush, he'd have no end of work.
posted by owen at 1:30 PM on October 31, 2000

What waxpancake said. Nader as president would have zero support from Congress - god knows what would happen then. He'd be meaningless - Congress would do whatever they want, he'd veto, they'd override all the time.

What makes you think Congress can agree that much on anything? Especially if the Democrats gain some seats this time around, do you think they'll be able to find 2/3 support for nearly any bill? As President, Nader wouldn't have the power to legislate, but he would have a lot of power to slow down and stop legislation he didn't agree with, a lot of control over the bureaucracy that actually implements legislation, and the best possible public forum for promoting his views. If he can use the position of President to convince the electorate to support him, Congress would be much more likely to go along. It wouldn't be easy, but the President does have a lot of power.
posted by daveadams at 1:42 PM on October 31, 2000

Are these two links close enough for you?

Egad. It's acceptable to make fun of the two major-party candidates, but as soon as somebody laughs at Nader, people here go ballistic...
posted by Aaaugh! at 2:15 PM on October 31, 2000

just goes to show, if you try to change things, you're going to get heat-- from every angle. Go Change.
posted by s10pen at 2:34 PM on October 31, 2000

What finally turned me against Nader for sure was something I think I read here at MeFi yesterday...

Well, hell -- if it's printed on this crazy yenta gossip line, it must be true!
posted by dcehr at 2:35 PM on October 31, 2000

I love all this Bush paranoia, its like we've never had a Republican president before. Actually I'm sure Ralph is sick of being asked that question and has answered differering replies to it. Most often its "none of the above." The Bush reply , if you read the article posted here a little bit ago, immediatly quotes him as saying, "Because he'll do anything industry wants." Or something close to that.

Yeah Nader does want to wake the sleeper apathetics and get them into the fight. They may help push the Dems back into liberalism or they may help build the Greens. Whichever, we're better off.

Anyways, if you know Nader's dry humor he had to pick Bush once someone mentioned guns. Its very funny actually, as the gun holder would be a Bush supporter and voting Gore would get him shot. Its also pretty sad to base your vote on one quote like this, up till now you've agreed with the platform and everything but that he might vote Bush suddenly turns you off? Weird.

I also disagree with your assumption that Gore is good for the country, he's losing Democratic votes because he ISNT good for the country. What self-respecting liberal wants someone who endorses the death penalty, war on drugs, increasing military spending, WTO, NAFTA, picks a VP obsessed with curbing violence in movies, etc. This is why Gore is losing, this is why after each debate more liberals say screw him.

Also a news flash, Nader isn't perfect and he won't be president but he's done tons to open political discourse and informing people on how business is taking over your rights. If he did get elected, the media access and vetoing power alone would make him a smashing success in my opinion.

Yes, I am voting mostly Democratic for congress as there are liberal democrats out there. Man, they should have just picked Bradley and won this thing.









posted by skallas at 3:45 PM on October 31, 2000