One thing left out of the Nader column is it is very likely that more than 537
or Pat Buchanan's 17,484 votes were by people who intended to vote
for Al Gore, but didn't because of the butterfly ballot.

And even with that lesson, thousands of votes in California weren't counted
because of a poorly designed ballot in LA.

Sent by Steve Rhodes | 4:26 PM ET | 02-27-2008

Ah, the pettiness of democrats is lamentable. And the ignorance of republicans is embarrassing.

Of course misguided liberals accuse Nader of "giving" the election to bush in 2000 which is debatable.

If liberals had stepped up and elected Nader in 2000 though, we would be far better off than we are, and far better off than we would have fared under a gore administration.

Ir republicans actually knew anything about Nader, they would probably respect him, and he would have "stolen" some votes from the republican side as well.

Fact is, Nader is the best candidate we have had in decades, and we CHOOSE, to marginalize him. Because we have been convinced, by our enemies that he is unelectable, and convinced, by our enemies that the other party must be stopped.

And that is how our collective enemies, have enslaved us...

Wake up.

Sent by Jody Sol | 4:42 PM ET | 02-27-2008

As for Florida (in 2000), there were quite a few votes (for G.W. Bush ?) siphoned-off by Pat Buchannan! It wasn't "tipped" by Nader alone.

The most contested county was Miami/Dade. And guess who showed-up in suprisingly strong numbers at the polls. Retired, confused, ultra-right-wingers (for Buchannan) and half-stoned, tree-hugging, whale-savers (for Nader).

Florida was close, but like Brian Conner of Boston (quoted by Tom above) "The truth is, Al Gore lost in 2000 because he stunk as a candidate."

For proof see: Al Gore, Father of the Internet. see also: Al Gore, PhD (of Fuzzy Math).

The democrats have had 8 years to "get over it", but BOTH of their leading candidates are STILL running against G.W. Bush. (Talk about campaigning in the past!)

To those that think a third party is an idea whose time has (finally) come: Where are your Reps?, your Senators? (Joe Lieberman doesn't count, Joe was abandoned by his party!)

Sent by Harold | 4:42 PM ET | 02-27-2008

ralph nader should stick to rolling blunts and stop showing up every 4 years.
i'm beginning to think he's on a republican payroll.

Sent by joe k. | 5:00 PM ET | 02-27-2008

I agree with Harold: any lasting political change should come from the bottom up. The Green Party, or any
Third-Party, will not take the top prize until voters give them the experience necessary in state and local government. You cannot have anything good come from the top-down. Only **** rolls downhill.

Sent by Adam | 6:03 PM ET | 02-27-2008

joe k's comment explains exactly what I'm commenting on above, small minded, divisive, hateful, ignorance

Republicans aren't evil, democrats aren't evil. We all want the same things, prosperity and freedom. By dividing against each other, we undermine our own democracy.

Nader simply refuses to participate in the division, which earns the ire of the tools out there tearing our country in half.

Sent by Jody Sol | 7:47 PM ET | 02-27-2008

Well said Jody.

The Republican vs Democratic "choice" is really no choice at all. They are the two sides of the same coin. They differ only at face value. They are far more alike than we know.

To wit: I submit that both parties first and foremost agenda every four years is not:

a) To put the candidate forth that best represents their constituents, nor

b) To win the election.

Their unstated objective is to maintain the staus quo of the two party system.

Y'all win these four years, we will win the next four years.

Both Democrats and Republicans attack any third party candidate. So will the media, with brutal force.

We have sold away our "free" media to corporations that only act in their own interests. They are bought, sold, and owned much as many of our politicans are.

They rarely if ever give a fair portrayal of a third party candidate. They don't invite them to national debates. There is no media coverage nor a convention frenzy.

In the last elections in this great land of America, these parties spent fortunes to put forth two very disappointing candidates on our Presidential ballot.

Sure we need a third party. A clean slate. A fresh start.

But perhaps the "System" is so entrenched that even the right Man or Woman wouldn't be tolerated as President.

Consider:
Stop printing fiat currency dollars and have the president mint gold coins to restore our currency using the powers our constituion grants him.

The last two presisdent's with the courage to do this (standing up to The foreign-owned Federal Reserve) were President's Lincoln and Kennedy.

Something to think about.

Our trade imbalance and our national debt will make it cheap for the rest of the world to buy our land, our companies and our country.

We need to go back to our Constitution. Do we collectively have the courage to demand such political change?

Would Ralph Nader champion these causes?

I pray that modern technology can enable us to nullify the mass media propoganda and educate and motivate our citizens to get involved and scream for change.

A lone voice can barely be heard in Washington. We need millions.

Sent by James Hartmann | 3:52 AM ET | 02-29-2008