New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | February 24, 2008 1:30 PM

....thereby putting to rest any doubts that Ralph Nader is a TOTAL @$$#0!=

Posted by: cedarhillresident | February 24, 2008 2:48 PM

I watched him on meet the press this morning and he did impress me. I just wish he would admit that he does take the vote from the dems. Although some say he gets votes for them.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | February 25, 2008 12:57 AM

You mean this isn't a story about Ferrucci???

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | February 25, 2008 9:26 AM

Ralph Nader did not take the votes diebold did!!!

Posted by: cedarhillresident | February 25, 2008 2:10 PM

This is a classic... and did get a yeah from me during the show.

Nader: "You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication that he's the candidate of perpetual war, perpetual intervention overseas? You think they're going to vote for a Republican like McCain, who allies himself with the criminal, recidivistic regime of George Bush and Dick Cheney, the most multipliable impeachable presidency in American history? Many leading members of the bar, including the former head of the American Bar Association, Michael Greco, absolutely dismayed over the violations of the Constitution, our federal laws, the criminal, illegal war in Iraq and the occupation? There's no way. "

Posted by: Chris Gray | February 25, 2008 3:11 PM

Between 11am and 11pm, our local NBC affiliate, WVIT lost the thread of what Ralph actually said and reported that he was running for President with the Green Party. He may want to, but the Greens don't seem to be entirely on board with that, judging from early posts on Ralph's website. Good luck to him, in either case. His criticisms are always on target.

Meanwhile, on NPR, Joe Lieberman is belly-aching that Ralph cost him the Vice Presidency as if, maybe, it wasn't he that cost Gore the overwhelming majority that could have given him the Presidency.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | February 25, 2008 4:22 PM

here is the transcript of the show
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319215/

Posted by: robn | February 25, 2008 5:47 PM

Ralph Nader, knowing that he couldn't possibly win in 2000, ran as a spoiler to make a point about his perception of corruption within the democratic party. He admits this but won't admit that his presence decided the election , allowing the Bushies to commit fraud in Florida.

Nader made his career pointing out that GM's Corvairs toopk innocrent lives. How many lives did the GOP take by plunging us into Iraq? Isn't Ralph as culpable as the engineers at GM???but at a far grander scale??? ADMIT IT RALPH...the blood of Iraq is on your hands as well.

Posted by: Bruce | February 25, 2008 9:44 PM

ROBN,

A couple of things to note here. First, 8 to 10 times as many Florida Democrats voted for Bush as did for Nader. A lot of people like to think this isn't true, but if you look at the polling data you will see that Bush was much, much more appealing to these Dems than Nader could have ever hoped to be. It's presumptuous to think that Nader's votes would have gone to Gore if he hadn't been on the ballot. most of his supporters might not have voted, might have voted for other third party candidates or might have voted for Bush.

Second, Gore's running mate, Joe Leiberman, was one of the earliest and most vocal proponents for attacking Iraq. I think he even started sounding the war cries before Bush did. The blood is on Nader's hands? Come on. The Democrats were just as complicit in this war as the Republicans. They opened the door every step of the way.

Posted by: Bruce | February 25, 2008 9:46 PM

...in 2000.

Posted by: Chris Gray | February 26, 2008 2:05 AM

Actually, Bill Saunders brings up an interesting point. Where is Ferrucci in all the NHI comment pages on issues of city issues?

He, along with all the identifiable Greens and Dilet... I mean DeStefano supporters, seems have abandoned one of the most vital forums New Haven has ever had available to its citizens.

As I wrote in the comments section of the WNYC public radio program "On The Media"'s website last night, "You know, since Jan. 20, 1981, there has been someone in the White House with a strong New Haven tie and, as far as I can tell, it hasn't done one bit of good for the people of our city. We haven't even got as good a deal from Yale, to offset all their tax exempt property, as Cambridge has from Harvard."

I never favored a Bush but I was none to happy with the Clintons and Gore picking Lieberman as his running mate gave me no reason not to vote for Nader in 2000.

Judging how Joe has behaved since, you'd think even Democratic zealots would see that that choice called Gore's judgment into question and that question leads one to wonder how differently his administration might have handled 9/11 and whether we really would have avoided this war with him as Environmentalist-in-Chief.

Barack is right, Democratic opponents to it were few and far between and I put the blame on the voters (you and me) for failing to stop the blood bath or, were you at the demonstration?

Posted by: robn | February 26, 2008 9:20 AM

Bruce,

Your proposition that Nader voters would have gone to Bush is ridiculous on its face. Nader's voters were green party lefties and given a choice between the far right GOP and the centrist Democratic party, there is just no way they would have gone with the GOP. The question is, would 600 Naders voters (the margin in FLA) have gone with the Dems...I say clearly YES. Ralph Nader's presence mattered and was definatively a spoiler; he used a selfish "my way or the highway" strategy. Ralph called for Eschaton and he got it. We all got it.

Posted by: Bruce | February 26, 2008 10:38 AM

ROBN,

I once made the same assumption, but the polling data does not seem back it up.

"The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race." -- Al From, Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919

Voters are not one-dimensional. The left vs. right comparison is over-simplistic and rather meaningless in a lot of cases.

Posted by: robn | February 26, 2008 12:42 PM

Bruce,

Nice try but I won't let you hang your hat on exit polls.

Voter News Service's products are garbage, and their methodologies for exit polling have been under fire since the very election you're referring to.

Posted by: Bruce | February 27, 2008 11:27 AM

It wasn't a "try" for anything, I was just sharing my opinion based on the best information I could find. Look beyond your emotions and even if you don't agree with those numbers, you will see that it this not so black and white. People are infinitely more complex than "left" or "right" and it is bizarre that we fence them in as such. The recent partisan polarity concerning baseball steroids proves just how arbitrarily this boundary is often drawn.

Scapegoating one man for a multi-level campaign failure may create a convenient focal point for frustration, but it does nothing to resolve the underlying failures. There will always be more than two candidates running for president and those other candidates may or may not feel responsible to help the donkeys and elephants. It's not like Nader has shown any affinity for either of those parties.

Like I said before, I used to share your opinion but have since changed my mind. Being open to a change of opinion is a wonderful thing -- it's the only way to learn anything at all.