1. Thank you for exposing the truth. The LA Times and others who attack Nader with myths and lies are just getting nervous as the 2008 election comes up and so they spew their hatred in an attempt to make sure Nader does not run again or recieve support. If Nader runs, I will vote Nader again. By the way I would have voted BUSH in 2000 since I am a Republican, had Nader not run.

2. What about 2000? Did Nader cost Algore any states besides Florida?**

   Just out of curiosity: what is it about Nader that would appeal to a Republican?

   ** I’m assuming that most of the nearly 100,000 votes that Nader got in Florida would’ve otherwise gone to Algore.

3. “The article is in error to say that Ralph Nader injured John Kerry’s campaign in 2004. Both polling data and analysis of Nader’s election returns show that Nader did not injure Kerry.”

   Even if every one of Nader’s supporters would have gone for Kerry in a two-candidate race, it still wouldn’t have mattered. In Ohio, Nader was not even on the ballot as a write-in, and in Florida, Bush won by about 10 times as many votes as Nader got.

4. I don’t see where it says anything specifically about Nader injuring Kerry in 2004, the idea is so absurd that you do it a disservice by reposting these statistics, fascinating though they are.

   I’ve always had a low opinion of Gitlin, but I’m actually surprisingly impressed with this column for reasons irrelevant to the matter at hand.

5. I wish people would stop blaming Nader for participating, and look at supporting Ranked Choice Voting methods to eliminate this problem nationwide.

6. My mom is an example (I think a very common one), of Nader voters whose second choice would have been Bush (in 2000 and 2004): she’s devoutly Catholic and follows Church teaching, in particular that she’s extremely pro-life, wants honesty from politicians, and is for strong social investments to address poverty. She really will not vote for pro-choice politicians, unless they really don’t want to make the legality of abortion a signature issue (Nader), they stand for real transformation of democracy (Nader), and they will institute real changes (labor-law reform, etc.) that will end poverty in this country (Nader again).

   There are tons of Americans like my mom. They really think of themselves as Americans without a party. The only other person who has really appealed to them in the fast few decades was Jerry Brown in 1992, and Jesse Jackson Sr. in the 1980s to some extent. Most Green Party candidates are extremely pro-choice, so the Greens aren’t really a political home for my mom, but Nader has been.

7. In addition to the one posted above, there were other reasons why some people would have voted for Bush instead of Nader.

   Forgotten now is that Texas Gov. George W. Bush ran for office in 2000 vowing to “change the tone” in Washington and vowing to have “humble” foreign policy.

   William Jefferson Clinton was widely perceived as presiding over a corrupt administration. Every time you turned around the guy was hosting another $10,000 a plate fundraiser. He was a liar and he was kind of sleazy.

   Many times in arguments about balot access and third parties I have brought up the question of corruption. I have lived all around this country, and frankly, the Democratic Party Machines, particularly in these one-party Democratic big cities where I have lived, are all crooked. They may be crooks who vote the right way on my issues, but they are crooks, nonetheless. If you are an ambitious political hack in Boston, Chicago, San Jose, or Los Angeles, then you join the Democratic Party and mouth “liberal” slogans. There is not much more depth to these hacks than that.

   Hence, if you were an old-fashioned Republican in 2000 and (correctly) unsure about Bush, then Nader was a definite alternative.

   Alex Walker

8. This is an interesting discussion. Nader himself has outlined in numerous speeches why he felt his campaigns would appeal to disaffected Republicans and not simply far left Democrats, as the knee-jerk hysterical reactions would have everyone believe. The reasons he cites most vociferously are the failure of Republican officeholders to police the corporate crime wave and to keep the federal budget from ballooning into deficit; the commercial exploitation of children and the disintegration of American culture into the toilet; and the destruction of the environment (the federal park system and other environmentally oriented policies were originated by progressive Republicans back in the days of TR). I’ve seen more than one former Republican join the Green Party and/or support Nader due to Republican officeholders’ lack of environmental stewardship and leadership.

9. GO TO :

   http://cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

   It dispells the myth that nader cost Gore the election

10. What people like Mr. Gitlin (i.e. virtually everybody) don’t seem to realize is that candidates don’t cost anybody anything. The people who VOTE for them are the ones that should be held accountable, if anyone is to be held accountable. RN didn’t force anybody to vote for him, and the Democratic Party doesn’t get to decide what an “acceptable” reason for voting for someone is. And not one single prominent Democrat has ever made any attempt to find out from people who voted for RN in 2000 why they did, and what it would take for them to vote Democratic in the future.

    To follow up on my previous response, Mr. Gitlin, in his desire to show off his knowledge of third party history, forgets to mention how successful both the Socialist and Green parties have been at the local level……mayor, town council, etc. The impact the Green Party has had in places like California, Oregon, upstate New York, etc. is substantial and I doubt the Democratic left wing would be as emboldened or as successful absent the groundwork done at the local level years prior by third party activists and candidates.

11. The California Green web site linked above, on the subject of the 2000 election (not 2004) is very good. It is loaded with detailed, factual information. Nevertheless, it doesn’t discredit the argument that Nader’s 2000 campaign altered the national outcome. Complex events have many, many causes. To say that Nader’s 2000 campaign altered the 2000 election outcome does not mean that other events also didn’t alter the outcome.

    Minor party and independent candidates should never be ashamed to acknowledge that they altered an election outcome. That’s how minor party and independent candidate supporters are able to exert some influence. When the Prohibition Party caused the Republicans to lose the 1884 presidential election, Republicans were enraged at the Prohibition Party. But when the Prohibition Party causes the Republicans to lose another presidential election (1916), the Republicans in Congress decided to pass the 18th amendment. They were sick of losing presidential elections over the prohibition issue. The amendment had been pending in congress since 1875, but only southern Democrats and a few Republicans supported it. But Republicans voted for it en mass in 1917, so it passed.

12. This is what I sent to Mr. “Famous Author” Gitlin after reading his piece. Don’t be put off by his credentials. If you have something to say to someone, find their address and give them a piece of your mind. He’s not shy, don’t you be!

    Dear Mr. Gitlin,
    I read with bemused interest, your opinion piece in the LA Times. I’m told you are a famous author and googled you to see that you are also Columbia faculty and a frequent contributor to my formerly favorite site, Salon. From the opening salvo, I felt I had to reply, not so much to prop up the main object of your scorn, but to correct you on your obvious confused state regarding Ralph Nader and the Green Party.
    First of all, I know you meant the slight, but it was not at “a green party convention in Reading, Pa.,” but rather at “he Green Party Convention.” We are a party, and as you actually did later on in your hatchet job, we do deserve to be capitalized whatever your prejudices.
    Don’t worry, I would never dare confuse the Democratic party with any little “d” democratic characteristics, especially in the state of New Mexico where your Democrats seek to make it as difficult as possible for any third party to participate in electoral politics!!

    I was there in the early days of the Green Movement and in attendance at national meetings in the 1990’s when Nader’s name was nary a whisper, if present at all on anyone’s lips. Yes, Mr. Gitlin, there was the idea of a Green Party long before the interest in and of Ralph Nader. Nader has never registered as a Green, never called himself a Green, and as far as many are concerned, is not a Green. So, as I stated, the Greens predated any involvement with Nader and therefore to call us” Nader’s Greens” is a factual misstatement equal to referring to “Wallace’s Democrats.” I would expect you to know better based on your obvious knowledge of the subject, but after reading your work, it seems you sport glasses with permanent Nader-in-sights that mar your vision of the alternative party landscape. I do hope that you have at least looked past Nader to peruse the Green Party’s ideas and platform, a declaration of values established by those who built the party, not Mr. Nader.

    Secondly, should it be only “Nader’s advocates” who do not weary of pointing out the accomplishments of American third party efforts?
    “The energy and moral vigor of outsiders has now taken up residence inside the Democratic Party.” Do you really believe this silliness, Mr. Gitlin?
    With the continued failure of campaign finance reform, the votes by the majority of the Democratic Congress FOR the War Based on Lies?
    The lack of movement on national health initiatives? The grinding slowness of action on climate change and a commonsense-based energy policy?
    The votes resulting in approval of the Patriot Act by your vaunted party?
    The “energy and vigor has attempted to take up residence” perhaps, but continues to be rebuffed even to the this day! Are you naive enough in your advanced wisdom and intellectual achievement, to believe the election season rhetoric you are hearing to be anything more than the fantastical flights of Harry Potter and friends buzzing about on brooms during a game of Quidditch?? This is the same game we play every four years, only this year it’s reached a fevered pitch with candidate celebrity status on par with rock stars and through ramped up media outlets a la You Tube.
    “Enfold movement energies within the party?” Perhaps someday when the Democratic leadership takes seriously the ideas and sincere concerns of those of us who have chosen to leave the party long since. Otherwise, there is no compelling reason why any of us in the Green Party or any other alternative party organization should ever abandon the much-needed attempt to establish a multiparty system in this great nation and finally put to rest the duopoly that has only engendered stagnation.

13. According to “House of Bush, House of Saud” by Craig Unger, there were 90,000 Arab-Americans who cast votes in Florida in the 2000 election, and they split between George Bush and Ralph Nader. So if Nader had not been on the Florida ballot, many of his Arab-American supporters would probably have voted for Bush rather than Gore.

    It does not prove anything, but it suggests that blaming Nader for Gore’s loss may be incorrect.

14. According to Gitlin’s article: “At a green party convention in Reading, Pa., on July 14, Ralph Nader provoked admirers and detractors alike when he declared that he is once again “considering” a run for the presidency.”

    What? I was there. Was Gitlin? I’m not a Green Party member and attended while representing a libertarian-leaning NGO. I spoke with Mr. Nader personally regarding ballot access, attending both his press conference and speech.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6656306292835551753

    I do not recall his having said anything of the sort and from my perspective, he actually played down any prospect of running in 2008. The crowd of Green Party attendees (capitalized as a proper noun, but I digress) chanted “Run, Ralph, Run!” in a standing ovation afterwards.

    Gitlin also proclaims: “What Nader refuses to recognize, however — indeed, what he is intensely committed to not recognizing — is that political reform movements today are not what they were. The world has changed. The energy and moral vigor of outsiders has now taken up residence inside the Democratic Party. There, it is a force — a recruiting channel, a source of funds, a well of campaigners, a lobby, a debate center.” and “Now that they’re inside, they can take credit for party victories without sacrificing their independence or integrity.”

    What alternative dimension is Gitlin living in? In the dimension I reside, the Democrats have failed to deliver on about every political reform movement from A (as in “anti-war”) through Z (as in “Zaire”). Greens, Libertarians and independents alike know this all too well. Recent polls reflecting a less than 20% approval rate of a Democratic Congress is substantial proof.

    As a long-time aficionado of third party politics, my digestion of Todd Gitlin’s pabulum was the most ridiculous I have regurgitated in some time. I am absolutely astounded that it was printed in the L.A. Times despite the fact that they are a major media source.

15. Dear Richard:

    If Todd Gitlin really were a “famous author” you wouldn’t have to describe him as one. While Gitlin is perhaps well known to intellectuals, I doubt that on the street one in a hundred knows his name.

    Regards
    Paul Ciotti

16. Richard said, Minor party and independent candidates should never be ashamed to acknowledge that they altered an election outcome.

    Amen.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.