comment #1

MathewM says ...

I would think that Nader would be universally hated nowadays after the 2000 election. It's pretty funny how all of the "greens" cast a vote for a guy who was running against Al Gore. Pretty stupid too.

comment #2

le corbeau says ...

Few things in life are sweeter than listening to a leftie rant and rave about how evil you are for not sharing their utter hatred of Das Bu$hitler, and then finally stopping them to ask, "I voted for Al Gore in 2000. Who did you vote for?"

comment #3

L.B. says ...

Do the ones who answer "Al Gore" ever follow up by asking why you have the self-satisfied smirk on your face?

comment #4

americanrat says ...

MathewM -

Gore's self-invention as the patron saint of the environment was in response to his 2000 loss at the hands of Nader.

Had Gore won in 2000 he would have remained a conservative democrat of the Clinton variety, with no particular attention paid to the human caused global warming boogerman.

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

Had Gore won, he surely would have been better about the issue than Bush has - he wrote a frickin' book about it! He could have spent more time on climate change if for no other reason than because Pres. Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

comment #6

le corbeau says ...

"Do the ones who answer "Al Gore" ever follow up by asking why you have the self-satisfied smirk on your face?"

When it happens, and I can't find the remnants of their Nader-Laduke sticker to prove them liars, I'll let you know.

"He could have spent more time on climate change if for no other reason than because Pres. Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq."

An historical supposition on a par with Oliver Stone's conviction that JFK planned to get out of Vietnam. What, precisely, in Gore's long record prior to 2000 suggests that he wouldn't have been an extremely hawkish Democrat after 9/11, especially given that he would have been under much more pressure for having been in the executive branch during the decade leading up to the attack?

comment #7

jeffmcm says ...

Because the Bush administration was wholly responsible for trumping up the intelligence as a prelude to war. No Bush administration = no reports of WMDs that didn't exist = no clamoring for invasion. Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, for sure, but since there was no reason to invade Iraq, it wouldn't have happened.

comment #8

jeffmcm says ...

I thought it was common knowledge that the only reason Iraq was invaded was as part of the Neoconservative strategy to remake the Middle East. They just needed enough time to concoct a pretext - it was obvious in 2002/2003 that was what was happening.

comment #9

D.Z. says ...

I've got no regrets about voting for Nader. It's Gore's own fault that he couldn't compete with the son of a one-term wonder, especially since his party had a better economy in 2000 than the Republicans in '92. And if the Dems lose again in '08, they'll know why: because they chose to let Dubya have his way with Iraq and Iran. Hopefully, that'll lead to a landslide for the Greens, because frankly, I'm sick of both parties criticizing violence in entertainment while endorsing the real-life variety of violence.

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

P.S. Ralph will be at the Nuart screening next Friday.

comment #11

joncro says ...

I voted for Nader and I will continue to vote for whoever looks like the best candidate in any election. And I really wish that the people who complain that Ralph let Bush in would give half as much of that bile to the jerks who actually voted Republican.

comment #12

Tram says ...

Nader >>>>>>> Gore

comment #13

D.Z. says ...

On the other hand, I honestly believe the 9/11 hijacking wouldn't have happened or at least would haven't resulted in as big a casualty if Gore was elected, because, unlike Dubya, he actually would have kept up with terrorist warnings, since he'd rather protect Americans than use their deaths as a pretext to start a war.

comment #14

jeffmcm says ...

Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't believe in 'voting for the best candidate' because it would be a long series of meaningless write-in votes for me. I believe in voting against the worst candidate, and obviously in 2000 that meant voting for Gore, who did dig his own grave with his ridiculous debate performances.

comment #15

le corbeau says ...

D.Z., what about the Clinton-Gore administration's feckless handling of al-Qaeda gives you this serene confidence that nothing bad can ever happen to you under a Democrat president?

9-11 was a plot years in the making. Our history of paying insufficient attention to Islamic terror attacks goes back to at least the Nixon administration. If there was one thing our government had been nonpartisanly united in, it was obliviousness. September 11th, no matter who was ptesident, would have happened. Gore, selected as VP because his hawkish credentials helped Clinton, would have attacked Afghanistan, and then, like Bush, he would have begun looking at the state sponsors of terror and the overall instability and dysfunction of the region and the Islamic world. He would have reacted differently from Bush-- but the one thing he would not have done is ended it all right there and pretended it was not a problem.

Oh, and the other thing he wouldn't have done is give two whoops about Kyoto and greenhouse gases in the face of terrorists with their eyes on nukes.

comment #16

erniesouchak says ...

I didn't vote for Nader, but one of the strongest points made in this documentary is how outrageous it was for the Democrats to say he "stole" votes they were "entitled" to. Perhaps if they had worked a little harder for those votes....

comment #17

SpinDozer says ...

'...the Clinton-Gore administration's feckless handling of al-Qaeda...'

hahahahahahastopitnow. Tho if true, would greatly reduce Bush culpability which would explain Lunatic fringe insistence in saying it over and over again.

'September 11th, no matter who was ptesident, would have happened.'

As long as they thought 'bin Laden determined to strike in US' was a history term paper instead of a PDB.

'he wouldn't have done is give two whoops about Kyoto and greenhouse gases in the face of terrorists with their eyes on nukes'

True as anything else you've said, ie., horseshit. Projections for GW are probably more threatening than terrorism...if the predictions are correct, the displacement and economic disruption caused by crop failures, sea level, increases and extreme weather will probably result in more terrorism. You seem to imply that Bush has kept terrorist from obtaining nukes...instead of allowing greater nuke proliferation which will almost certainly lead to greater terrorist nuke access.

americanrat - 'Gore's self-invention as the patron saint of the environment was in response to his 2000 loss at the hands of Nader.'

Just hit the snooze bar dude. Gore's legislative and public support of environmental issues began with his political career. Look at the publication date of 'Earth In The Balance'.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "D.Z., what about the Clinton-Gore administration's feckless handling of al-Qaeda gives you this serene confidence that nothing bad can ever happen to you under a Democrat president?"

From http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/ramzi-yousef/:
"The first major explosion Ramzi Yousef added to his resume was significant in a number of ways -- the World Trade Center. In late 1992, Yousef entered the country with a fake Iraqi passport and asked for asylum. His traveling companion was arrested immediately when a search of his luggage revealed bomb-making manuals. Because the INS holding cells were overcrowded, Yousef was released with instructions to come back a month later for a hearing...."

"Our history of paying insufficient attention to Islamic terror attacks goes back to at least the Nixon administration."

Yeah, well Carter tried to get us out of terrorism by creating a policy of alternative energies and diplomatic strategies, but stupid Americans before my time chose to vote for a guy who would rather sell weapons to Iran, occupy Lebanon and massacre Palestinians in a concentration camp, and support Osama against the Soviets rather than endorse fuel-efficient vehicles.

"September 11th, no matter who was ptesident, would have happened."

The attempted millennium terrorist attack didn't happen under Clinton...

"Oh, and the other thing he wouldn't have done is give two whoops about Kyoto and greenhouse gases in the face of terrorists with their eyes on nukes."

Are you kidding me? When even the Pentagon says that global warming's more of a threat than terrorism, I'd imagine Gore would make the former a priority over the latter.

comment #19

le corbeau says ...

"Yeah, well Carter tried to get us out of terrorism by creating a policy of alternative energies and diplomatic strategies"

Sorry, you win the Neville Chamberlain "Peace In Our Time" prize right there, for your keen understanding of what the enemy wants from us, and what will get them to stop.

"The attempted millennium terrorist attack didn't happen under Clinton..."

No, just the first bombing of the WTC, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole, the "Black Hawk Down" incident...

"When even the Pentagon says that global warming's more of a threat than terrorism"

Not to mention when buildings can talk!

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Sorry, you win the Neville Chamberlain "Peace In Our Time" prize right there, for your keen understanding of what the enemy wants from us, and what will get them to stop."

Carter didn't sell weapons to Iran, Libya, or Noriega. So how was he like Neville Chamberlain again?

"No, just the first bombing of the WTC,"

Happened because of Bush Sr. looking the other way on a suspect, just like Jr. would years later with the second bombing. Next.

"the Oklahoma City bombing,"

Happened because of a disgruntled vet of a war started by Bush Sr. Next.

"the Khobar Towers bombing,"

Occured because of people associated with a group supplied with money and arms because of Reagan. Next.

"the USS Cole,"

That's not American soil, just American property. Next.

"the "Black Hawk Down" incident..."

Had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Next.

comment #21

le corbeau says ...

You're awfully sure that a lot of things happened because of one contributing incident cherrypicked along the way, D.Z.

It's all sort of like saying Pearl Harbor happened because there was a nice wind for flying that day.

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "You're awfully sure that a lot of things happened because of one contributing incident cherrypicked along the way, D.Z."

Well supporting future terrorists and dictators tends to have a shit-storm effect, you know...

"It's all sort of like saying Pearl Harbor happened because there was a nice wind for flying that day."

It probably happened cus FDR didn't try to stop it. But even if he did, war would have been inevitable. The Iraq war (and the Afghanistan war-to some extent) was a war of choice.

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

Oh and just something to chew on: more Republican hypocrisy as usual. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/republicans-and-congress-war-powers.html#links

comment #24

Terry McCarty says ...

Don't have a link for it now, but David Edelstein's recent review of the Nader documentary in NEW YORK is worth reading.

comment #25

SpinDozer says ...

Edelstein on Unreasonable Man...

http://nymag.com/movies/reviews/26991/

&

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7127679