I voted for Nader in 2000 because I felt that Gore and the Democraps (NOT a typo) were doing very little to appeal to me.

I'm embarrassed to say that, at the time, I said - publicly - that it might actually help the Democraps to lose so that they would
start appealing to what Paul Wellstone later called the Democratic wing of the party.  And besides, I said in my IGNORANCE,
how bad could four years of Dubya be?

Well, now we know why I'd never make a living as a psychic or a bookie!  LOL

As unhappy as I am with Kerry (my fourth choice of the original 10,000 candidates), I'll toe the line and vote for him because I can't
imagine what this country would be like after four years of the BFEE in which there were no thoughts of winning an upcoming election...
Care to join me in researching life in New Zealand?

I think you said it first, Bart...
Nader should raise all kinds of hell 'til mid-to late-October and then withdraw, telling all twelve of his supporters to support and vote for Kerry .

John

Oh, Bart, how could you even wonder? Fool me once-shame on you...

Shame on Ralph. Instead of insisting on another kamikaze run in electoral politics,
he ought to be pushing for accountability in elections. He's certainly the poster boy
for unintended consequences of sloppy practices.

Dani H

Bartcop,

I voted for Nader in 1996 and in 2000 (I knew my vote in 2000 wouldn't affect the outcome, my state
was solidly Gore).  I like his policy positions better than any of the Democrats (except for Kucinich).
I am not going to vote for Nader this time.  Think of it this way.  I like to walk to school with the guy whose
company I most enjoy (Nader).  But one of the other kids has turned into a loathesome bully (Bush), so I
tell my friend (Nader) that this morning I'm going to walk to school with someone else (Kerry) so I can help
administer a well-deserved ass-kicking.  As soon as the other kids find out that being a loathesome bully
does not pay off, I'll go back to walking with my friend (Nader).

Stubby

I voted for Nader in Wash. State because I knew Gore would win there.
I wanted to protest Gore not going after Bush and the Repubs strongly enough.

If I had lived in Florida, I would have hoped I would have been smart enough to vote for Gore.
But, who knew they would steal it?  Gore should have won it by a ton.
I won't make that mistake this time.

Landslide for Kerry and ...?

R King

In 2000, I was fresh out of high school and didn't know much about politics. I always felt that the smaller
the group with which I was aligned, the likelier I was to be right. Nader spoke to my suspicion regarding
corporations and our bizarre electoral process. Yes, Republicans are more blatant and shameless about it,
but Democrats take money from corporations too. So I voted for Nader, who seemed (and, honestly, still seems)
more principled than the Dem and Repub nominees. I knew he wouldn't win, but I hoped that he might secure
federal funds for the Green Party.

This year, though, Nader hasn't got a chance to win, and worse, no matter how many votes he gets, he won't be
securing funds for a third party. A vote for him serves no purpose, then, but to shunt a vote away from the next-most
liberal candidate. I'm no great lover of Kerry, but there's no denying that he'd be less destructive to the American
people, the environment, the economy, and the Constitution than Bush has been (and would continue to be if granted
another term). So my vote will go to Kerry this year. Nader is not a threat.

Tim

Yes, Bart, I admit it, I voted for Nader in 2000. I was living down in Texas because my old Dad had been
mauled by a bull. True story. I went there to feed the cows for him while he was having several operations on
his back.  So that's where I voted. Fat lot of good it did.

Why did I vote for Nader? Well, like many others, I see those who run for office from the two major
parties as whores for the various corporations who pay for their election campaigns. I have never seen enough
evidence to the contrary to convince me otherwise, but if there is someone out there who can present a good
argument that this is not so, I am willing to change my mind. I doubt that that can be done. I see what the
Democrats actually DO as opposed to what they WOULD DO if they were a legitimate opposition party.

I saw Kerry on the news the other day saying that he was for election finance reform. I believe that
exactly as much as I did the statement Bush the First made when he was running for re-election; he said he
was running as the "Education President". Does anyone really believe in the promises of politicians running
for office? If they do, they are young and inexperienced.

But the question was, who am I voting for in the upcoming election - John Kerry. I am back in New
Mexico now and I will be proud to do what I can to deliver our state to Kerry.

How could Kerry possibly be worse than Bush? Those who are regular readers of your page know well
the foibles of the current occupiers of the Executive Branch. There is no need to elaborate on that here.

What troubles me is that the callow youth of America seem to be in Bush's camp. If Edwards had been the
nominee, perhaps he could have won them over. Kerry seems far too wooden to do so. It's left to us, those
who read the news, those who can find it in their hearts to care about someone else to vote for...
ANYBODY WHO CAN BEAT BUSH. And that I will do. I will vote for the Democratic candidate and I
will be proud that I did what I could to save our country from the worst Administration we have ever had.

Thanks for letting me have my say,
Wess

Hi,
Keep up the good work! As an laid off for the second time in 5 years, first due to
aquisistion and second corporate malfeasance, I've spent quality time with the site.

Voted for Nader in 2000 in Maryland strictly as a protest.  Having some understanding
of the electoral system, I knew this would be safe to do in Maryland where Dems outnumber them by 2-1.
I never would have voted for him if I were a Floridian.  I do buy into most of his positions and feel he is
a American hero.  But, he may be getting senile.  Bush has been worse than anyone could have imagined.

Regards,
Bob S.
 

Bob, an America hero?
Not trying to be a smart ass, but what are Nader's accomplishments?

It's my guess his accomplishments are non-tangible, such as "raised awareness,"
and "provided hope," but does he have any concrete accomplishments?

I not only voted for Nader in 2000, but I voted for him in 1996 (Iowa still went Democratic both years anyway).
I thought I was trying to send the Democratic Party a message to stop moving so far to the right.

Unfortunately, I don't think they got that message.
They seem to be getting the message from the caucuses and primaries
"Don't let Butthead get away with it!", meaning, of course, Monkey Boy.

I will NOT be voting for Nader this time around.  I would vote for a poodle if it were the Democratic nominee.
It is THAT IMPORTANT to get rid of this clown, the "Worst U.S. President EVER."
All this is seconded by my wife, who also voted for Nader in 2000.
So that's two votes coming back.

Keep the hammer pounding!
Mike Short
 

Mike, your "I would vote for a poodle" comment reminded me of my favorite campaign slogan.
Years ago, maybe 1994, Gov. Edwards in Louisiana was certainly not a saint, but he was running
against challenger David Duke (R-Honest about it).

So the democrats printed up bumper stickers that said, "Vote for the crook."
That gets me every time I think of it.

Yeah, I voted for Nader in 2000 (my state went for Gore, so I'm not responsible in that sense),
but I won't vote for him this time, because the stakes are so high.

Three points:  1) Kerry is our hope to "de-monkeyfy" the White House, and it's up to all real Americans,
those who value our difficult and messy democracy, to support him.  I don't want to see him drift to the right
to counter the screaming lies of Hannity, Pigboy et al, but he'll have to drift pretty damn far to lose me this time.
2) I was mistaken about Al Gore.  He ran perhaps the lamest campaign in modern history, covering up the fact
that he's competent, brilliant, and very likeable.  He's now a hero of mine; I just didn't know it during his campaign.
3) I still believe that Nader is correct: the 2-party system, funded all around by big money and shutting out really
courageous and creative politics, keeps our nation from becoming what is was designed to be.

However, Kerry's now my man, Ralph -- so just chill this time, OK?

Ron Green

Bart,

 Democrats and others on the left who have excoriated Nader for running are ignoring the big picture.  Does this sound familiar?:
1) Republican runs as a moderate to win the middle and gets elected.
2) Republican turns out to be a radical rightist acting like deficits, military spending, and environmental destruction are ends in themselves.
3) Huge corporate scandals put huge gobs of stolen wealth in the hands of radical rightist supporters of said Republican.
4) Centrist Democrat runs, capitalizing on the left's discontent with the radically rightist incumbent.
5) Centrist Democrat turns out to be more rightist in some ways than his predecessor, splitting the left.
Go back to one, and repeat until the American people are reduced to involuntary servitude.

As the cycle progresses, the funds stolen by rightists are used to purchase the media.  With both parties and the media cooperating,
the entirety of political discourse moves inexorably to the right.  Over the decades, just positions which were once taken for granted
on the left become radical and indefensible in the minds of the public, while radical and indefensible positions on the right are not only
given credence and respectability, they are taken for granted by both parties and the media.  THE ENTIRE NATION IS BEING
SLOWLY BRAINWASHED.  I voted for Nader in 2000 hoping that the DLC would get the message that they are leaving the
democratic wing of the Democratic party behind.  I was hoping that Nader would cost Gore the election to sharpen the point.

Unfortunately, the DLC was able to successfully distort that message and so, ignore it.  I understand that Nader is running to express
the viewpoints which now will be forgotten for the next 4 years as Kerry courts the center and slavishly serves the corporate-controlled
DLC and media, and I am glad that he is doing so.  Who did you think was going to bear that message, you?  I'm afraid the vast majority
of the people who need to hear it have never heard and will never hear of you.  I don't know how much better Nader can do, but you
certainly aren't helping him by attacking him.  Yes, of course, I will vote for Kerry in November.  But I won't like it.  I don't appreciate
being manipulated by the ruling class to vote for someone who doesn't represent my interests.  And after Kerry spends the next four
years making Clinton look like a liberal and Bush look like a moderate, I will be back voting for Nader (if he is still alive) or a suitable
substitute from anywhere in the vast wasteland to the left of Kerry.

Try to look at the big picture, Bart.

Scott Williams
 

Scott, you might be right in principle or on paper, but the big picture is this:

Either Kerry or Bush will have the next four years in the White House.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
A vote for Nader means you're happy with Bush's Amerikkka.

I'm disappointed that you're voting for Bush again.
I wish you were voting for change.

I voted for Ralph in 2000, but I sure as hell am not going to this time. I told him as much on his website
a few weeks ago when he was looking for input. What can I say, I was young and idealistic. Plus I live in
California, where Gore was sitting pretty by all accounts. I have to say, having Nader in is not all bad.

I think he'll take up very few actual votes, but he has the power, especially if backed by Karl's puppy media,
to play Malcolm X to Kerry's MLK. Centralizing. That's good since they want to paint Kerry as far left.
(That's all they got - oh yeah, plus beating up the gays)

-Matt

Bartcop,
I hope this stays "normal" cause I really like your stuff and such. I listened to Nader on
Meet The Press the other Sunday and liked what I heard. The guy makes sense. I just wish
that he would run on the Democratic Ticket!

I also caught the debate from USC on CNN and liked both ole Al and Dennis.  The other two
Johns sounded like the same record played the last time around. Dean was saying all the right things
in Iowa but the Mid-Westerners must listen with their hands. Clark was my guy from the first get-go
but no one else seemed to like him. Sad. We really need more of Sharpton......  I vote in California
but we won't be able to vote for the really good ones now.  Shame.
David T

Bart-

First, I want to start off by telling you what a big fan of your work I am.  I am glad that there is someone out there
putting Republicans on notice that not all of us are so distracted by Janet's boob that we have forgotten what evil asses they are.

Having said that, I feel I should share with you my reasons for voting for Ralph Nader in the last election, and why I will not be voting for him again.

2000-

We spent eight years under Bill Clinton, and yeah, things were definitely on the upswing.  The economy was chugging along great,
the country wasn't under constant intrusive surveillance, there was even talk of a budget surplus.  In fact, things were pretty darn good.
Things were so good in fact, that some of us liberals took a look at the "way things are done" in DC and said:  "Things in America could
be even better."  We thought that the Democratic Party had been sliding slowly towards a more centrist position, and that they had
forsaken some of the more liberal causes.  I don't blame this on any one person, certainly not on Bill Clinton, but it was still happening
nonetheless.  Along comes Mr. Nader who, after a lifetime in service to the citizens of our country, held that same position.

To those of us who were feeling "left out" if you will, this presented an opportunity to get some attention paid to the things we thought
were being forgotten in this era of Democrat power.  We looked at the situation at hand and thought: "No way is the man who served
this country for eight peace and prosperity filled years going to be defeated by a drunk-driving coke-head moron with a questionable
service record".  I can't speak for everyone, but even toward the end, when it was getting close, I simply could not believe that with all
of the weak spots Bush had that Gore couldn't handily defeat him.  Hell, I'm still amazed that Gore didn't kick his silver spoon ass all
of the way back to Texas.  So, believing that Gore would easily win (which I still say he did), I voted my conscience to say to the
Democrats "HEY, WAKE UP, WE'RE STILL HERE TOO."

Did I believe for a second that they were simply interchangeable corporate puppets?  No.  Did I think I was going to do my end of the
political spectrum a service by waking our leadership up to a forgotten element of their own party? Yes.  And by that same token, did
Gore run nearly as good of a campaign as he should have been able to, what with the peace and prosperity and all that?  Hell no.
Did any of us know truly how catastrophic a Bush presidency would be or did we, in our darkest nightmares, think that he would so
shamelessly take advantage of the deaths of thousands of people for political gains? A resounding and emphatic no.

Will I apologize for voting for Nader? No, and in addition I say that the blame for the loss of the Presidency in 2000 rests squarely
on the shoulders of a campaign team and candidate that couldn't beat a man who had absolutely nothing but holes in his character.
It should have been an old fashioned ass whipping, and instead it was a shocking and embarrassing indicator of how far out of touch
with the American people the leadership of the Democratic Party really was.

2004-

This time, the stakes are vastly different, and astronomically higher.  I have pondered on it ever since Ralph first started making noise
about running again, and I cannot think of a single sane reason that he might be doing it.  Not one.  Defeating Bush is the only liberal
issue in this election, and I will do everything in my power to help.  To paraphrase Tom Tomorrow, we have to stop the bleeding
before we can worry about giving our democracy a face-lift.  I still think that leftist liberal issues are being left by the wayside, but there
are more important battles to fight today.  Sorry Ralph, you're on your own this time.

Keep on kicking Republican ass Bart!

Brian T

I did but will not in 04.

Ray S

  return to  bartcop.com