Friday, May 28, 2010

Ralph Nader and Election of 2000

By Sodium

Because I was recently involved in an unpleasant debate about Ralph Nader and Presidential election of 2000,it is probably in order to re-assess Nader's influence on election 2000,if any.

There were wild accusations lodged against Ralph Nader because Al Gore lost the election to George W. Bush in 2000,inspite of the fact that the result of the election was really determined by the Supreme Court decision of 5:4. In other words, George W. Bush was not ELECTED but APPOINTED by a one vote majority in the Supreme Court. And yet, Ralph Nader was to blame by those who were looking for excuses to blame, whether it was Ralph Nader or some body else in Ralph's position, the excuses or rather the accusations had to be lodged, any way.

The major accusations publicly declared against Ralph Nader were / are the following:

* Because of Ralph Nader, Al Gore lost the election to George W. Bush by a slim margin. If Ralph was not running, Al Gore would have been elected President.

* One absurd claimer had claimed that George W. Bush won the 4 electoral votes of New Hampshere by only 1,000 votes. If Nader was not running Al Gore would have one those 4 electoral votes and subsequently would have won the Presidency.

* If Ralph Nader was not running all the 24 or 27 (I cannot remember the exact number) electoral votes of Florida would have been won by Al Gore and hence the White House.

* Ralph Nader has an ego problem for he keeps running for President and thus he keeps spoiling the Presidential election for the Democrats.

In my personal reviews, all the above accusations are excuses at best, or false at worst. Reasons:

(1) When Al Gore loses his home state of Tennessee, ( 11 electoral votes)which could have put him at the top and thus would have won the Presidency ), that alone indicates that Al Gore and his handlers ran a poorly coordinated campaign.

(2) The claim that George W. Bush had won the 4 electoral votes of New Hampshere by only 1,000 votes was incorrect, because the final tally of the votes for that state indicated that Bush won it by approximately 4,000 votes. Hence, if Nader was not running and the votes that were casted for Ralph were divided between Bush and Nader in the exact proportions that gave Bush the 4 electoral votes, still Bush would have won the state by even a wider margin. In addition, Senator John MaCain won New Hampshere in the two Republican primaries of 2000 and 2008, indicating there was a trend there that could not be ignored-favoring the Republicans.

(3) It was so obvious that Al Gore and his handlers kept a distance from the Clintons. This was proven to be a blunder, since many African American voters did not bother to vote in Florida because former President Bill Clinton was so popular in the African American community to a point that they dubbed him, in admiration, as " the first Black American President. " In other words, they sensed the drift, while some of their leaders were calling for unity but with no avail from the Al Gore's camp. In addition, Al Gore and his handlers declined to meet with Florida's leaders of the Florida's Muslim Americans, while George W. Bush met with them and received their 64,000 (sixty four thousands) as a result of his meeting with their leaders. That was so, according to former Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois, who had / has close contacts with the Muslim communities in the United States. He certainly wrote a book about them and their achievements entitled "Silent No More". His article about the 2000 presidential election, has been published in the magazine called "The Washington Report On Middle East Affairs" of January / February,2001 attested to that.

(4) As to the accusation that Ralph Nader was serving his own selfish ego as he keeps running for President and keeps spoiling the election for the Democrats, it was / is false also. It is well reported in the media that Nader intention from running was not to spoil the election to the Democrats but rather to keep certain issues alive in the campaign. He offered not to run, if the Democratic candidates would adopt just three issues out of a list of 20 issues and discuss them in the campaigns. Unfortunately, his offers were ignored or rejected. That neutralized the ego accusation.

Based on the reasons outlined above, Ralph Nader was not the cause for Al Gore's loss of the 2000 election to George W. Bush.

Al Gore had defeated Al Gore by running a poor campaign and no body else had defeated him.

For more proofs that prove that Ralph Nader was not the cause for the Democrats in losing the Presidential election of 2000,please check the following link:



  1. Sodium,

    Good job on Ralph Nader and the election! Thanks. You tackled a difficult one there given the fact that, in the minds of many, he was a spoiler. There's no question that Democrats made Nader a scapegoat. They also made his campaign extremely difficult in many states --he described this in an article he wrote. But, assuming for a moment that he took votes away from Gore, he was still a valid candidate with a right to run and someone with integrity and a long history of service to the country. Before the campaign, most Democratic voters were so arrogant as to say he shouldn't run at all, as if Nader and his supporters were not entitled to their choice separate from any other party. Al Gore has always been an opportunist who, when he was in the government, simply went along with his party machinery.

  2. MeHere,

    Your last comment,and I quote it: "Al Gore has always been an opportunist who,when he was in government,etc..." is compelling.

    Former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming had shown to be the case when he was in the Senate. I will dwell on that to re-confirm your point quoted above,as soon as I can.

  3. MeHere,

    I have finally located what I think you may be interested in knowing some details about Al Gore's mindset that really very few people have known. What I am going to refer you to to read is not my personal opinion but the opinion of former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming. If you are interested to read what Simpson had witnessed about Gore's behavior as a political animal,please check the forum of the following article:

    "Nader's Utopia: The World according to Ralph"
    Chris Hedges

    You can get to the above article/column by googling it.

    After you get to it,please roll the forum upward until you reach the following posts of mine:

    By Sodium,January 8 at 4:31 pm
    (Unregistered commenter)
    By Sodium,January 8 at 7:04 pm.
    9Unregistered commenter)

    The story that former Senator Sampson tells about Gore is truly fascinating and it had happened in the U.S. Senate.

    It is worth the time locating it and worth the time reading it.

    I hope you will find it and you will enjoy reading it.

  4. Thanks, S.

    I remember reading the article on R. Nader by C. Hedges. I hadn't read your excellent posts, or I don't remember reading them (I was going through a difficult time then.) Gore is a fraud that fits the voting mentality of most liberals. On Larry's List, currently on Truthdig, there's an important article on Proposition 14 in California and another on the same subject in regard to Washington State. The two parties have done everything they can to shut out third parties. How can the voters think we have democratic elections? Nader has explained this issue very well in the past. If I can find his articles I'll let you know -or maybe you've read them?

  5. MeHere,

    Please check the comments under my essay entitled "Chris Hedges and his Critics" to read what my daughter's opinion about your computer problem which has to do with your e-mails.

    My daughter signed her screen name as"Anonymous". Please check what she had/has to say. Her suggestion may be of help to you.