Ralph Nader Doesn't Read The Consumerist

“I was a volunteer at the Green Festival in Washington DC, over the weekend and the last speaker on Sunday was Ralph Nader. He was signing books at the tent right behind my assignment (collecting donations, cleaning up, etc.) I’m not a huge fan of his, but I do admire his work. So right after my shift ends I stood in line at his signing/meeting tent. His book was on sale at a separate tent, but so were some 50 other peoples, so it wasn’t exclusive for him. It was my turn so I walk up to him and ask if he can sign my Green Fest tote bag (gift for mom) and he says “I don’t sign bags” right after he said that I was a little disenchanted but quickly snapped back and asked him if he had ever heard of the Consumerist…”

“After some old people confusion and asking how often it was published I clarified and said for like the 3rd time that is was a website and I got a “I’ve never heard of it” Anyway, my point is after being sort of forced to buy his book to get an autograph (how’s that for consumerism?) I now find out that he has never heard of Consumerist, so in essence he sucks all around. Right after I left the Fest the first thing I did was pick up an over-priced Carmel Mocha at Starbucks. Suck it Nader! I still won’t eat at McDonalds or Shop at Wal-Mart, but I didn’t need that guy to tell me that, I do have common sense.

Love the Consumerist (but not Nader),

PS: I didn’t buy his book. $30 is so not worth it for his autograph.”

Thanks, Emily. We got a good chuckle out of your letter, and the image of an young activist drinking a Starbucks as a rebellion of sorts against Ralph Nader, a great rebeller himself (and also a man we genuinely respect and admire.). How fickle the emotions of youth are! Politicians better be careful trying to court this demographic come 2008. If you don’t shake their hand the right way, they might become anarcho-syndicalists and agitate for your downfall out of spite.

Also, Dear Ralph Nader,

Please read The Consumerist. We think you will like it.


The Consumerist


Edit Your Comment

  1. Anonymous says:

    I don’t think he is an unreasonable man. It just sounds like he is a pompous jerk. Shame on him.

  2. jgkelley says:

    Ralph Nader is extraordinarily old. I’m sure he’s fairly up on new technologies, but how odd would it be for someone to be pissed that Paul Mccartney doesn’t read Pitchfork? Although he might. Jus’ sayin.

  3. choinski says:

    I was a former employee of the man when he was granted a low power television lisence in Buffalo. He has so many projects he is never directly inviolved in any of them. He relies too much on a middle layer of managers. During my time under him we went without health insurance (the organization ‘forgot’ to pay for it), we blew a 2 year budget in 2 months and couldn’t broadcast a signal beyond our ow parking lot. Then the manager was replaced with someone new (we pushed for and supported this change, hoping things would imnprove), but she turned around and replaced the entire staff with her boyfreind & family. ‘Ralph’ was deaf, dumb & blind to it all. And this was all well before the Bush/Gore/Nader debacle.

  4. timmus says:

    forced to buy his book to get an autograph (how’s that for consumerism?)

    Good point! Also sucks about all that… I wonder if he’s always been bitter or if it’s just the result of the Presidential bid defeats and so on.

  5. suburbancowboy says:

    Lets not forget all of the great things Nader has done for this country, and for the consumer movement. The EPA, OSHA, seatbelts, no smoking on planes, and the list goes on and on. Just because someone had a bad experience with an old man doesn’t mean we should collectively rag on the guy. I think his legacy speaks for itself.

    Also, I am pretty sure that if we had free open presidential debates that were not controlled by big corporations and the two headed monster the Republicrats, Nader would’ve destroyed Bush and Gore in those debates.

  6. matt1978 says:

    The only thing Nader’s “destroyed” is the country.

  7. yahonza says:


    AGreee you can’t judge Nader on this anecdote.

    But Nader would have “destroyed” Bush and Gore in a debate?

    I think you need some perspective. Unless you hold extreme left wing views (which most people don’t), Nader’s not very compelling.

  8. Chicago7 says:


    How has Nader “destroyed” the country?

  9. Chicago7 says:


    It’s standard practice to have to buy the book at a book signing. Everybody usually knows that going in. I’m pretty sure they had a sign stating that. My guess is the author of this piece wasn’t paying attention.

    I doubt if Nader ever really thought he had a chance to be President. My guess is, he thought it was a good podium to get some of his programs some publicity.

  10. NefariousNewt says:

    I for one am not jumping on the Ralph Nader bandwagon, because for every good thing he has done, he’s shamefully neglected even more. This just goes to prove what I’ve been saying about him for years — he’s out of touch. He’s been spending so much time in his role as public crusader, that life has passed him by. He’s a bureaucrat of a different stripe. Seat belts: great idea. Air bags: waste of money required because some idiots won’t wear their seat belts and other idiots can’t be bothered to drive with common courtesy. His automobile safety mantra was taken up by the auto companies to sell SUVs to frightened suburban housewives.

    He’s not evil, just obtuse. And his campaign for President have been laughable at best, making him even more fringe and drowning out any message he may actually have. He needs to retire, and let someone else take the lead. I think the Consumerist is the place where this starts, because here, customers are fighting back against those who would simply take for granted that we will buy their cheap merchandise and lousy service and not make a fuss. Who among the ranks of the Consumerist faithful will rise to meet the challenge?!?

  11. Anonymous says:

    Nader is an interesting, if not politically confused, man who seems to me to be well intentioned, if not sometimes over zealous.
    I respect him, but disagree with him politically.
    I don’t think he’s ‘destroyed’ the country, but back when I voted democrat he was directly responsible for swinging the vote to republicans by luring voters to blow their votes on a candidate with no chance of winning.
    I’ll probably never forgive him for that, even though I won’t vote democrat again…

  12. forever_knight says:

    someone, please explain what is the point of Emily’s rant against Nader?

    -he didn’t sign her bad (who cares)
    -he doesn’t read the consumerist (uh…ok)
    -she gets back at him by buying a starbucks (wtf?)

    and now these random hateful comments about how he’s somehow still upset about not winning the freaking election?

    no offense to consumerist, but nader/public citizen is in a completely different league:

    nader: seat belt laws :: consumerist : jo-ann fabric shit capades

  13. Antediluvian says:

    Emily said,
    Anyway, my point is after being sort of forced to buy his book to get an autograph (how’s that for consumerism?) I now find out that he has never heard of Consumerist, so in essence he sucks all around.
    Emily is wrong.
    The fact that Ralph Nader hasn’t heard of a blog isn’t the reason he sucks. He sucks because his pro-consumerist values have been replaced by an anti-establishment point of view.

  14. Dr.Ph0bius says:

    Is this a story?

    First, any time I have ever went to one of these things for ANYONE, politician or not, they are there to sell something (in this case a book). I have yet to see anyone appearing that was just signing any random thing you give them… you either buy what theyre selling, or they have photos of themself for sale that you can purchase and have autographed.

    Second, regardless of what you think of Nader, he is from the “series of tubes” generation… he probaly still calls the internet ” the America Online.”

    and Third… is this a story?

  15. GiselleBeardchen says:

    Yeah, and the Corvair was a cool car too. I don’t give a shit what anybody says!

  16. Jesse in Japan says:

    Nader didn’t destroy America, he just made it possible for Bush to do it.

  17. SaveMeJeebus says:
  18. louisb3 says:

    @Chicago7: That’s probably true, but it seems kind of ironic when candidates do that. The mass media is too collectively stupid to discuss issues, so all they do is judge the viability of candidates – and non-viable candidates are ignored.

  19. xamarshahx says:

    I definitely agree Nader screwed this country, he was too self-centered to realize what he did in 2000 was wrong. He claims Gore and Bush would have been the same, that just shows how big an idiot he is.

  20. whereismyrobot says:

    Why is this post tagged “activism?”

  21. Echodork says:

    This is one of the reasons that political fame doesn’t appeal to me. You can work your entire life on good and useful activities, and kids who have no idea who you are outside what they saw on CNN will hate you because you don’t sign their bag.

  22. Bye says:

    I don’t care what in the hell he does as long as he doesn’t ever campaign for political office again.

    My brain won’t even retain the good things he’s done in the past anymore. Whenever I hear about him, I just think about what an egocentric, toxic jerk he is.

    He should take up a hobby like knitting or parcheesi.

  23. JanetCarol says:

    money – that’s his and most others sole concern

  24. kimsama says:

    @whereismyrobot: What? Buying coffee at Starbucks isn’t activism enough for ya? ^_^

  25. Flymaster says:

    I definitely agree Nader screwed this country, he was too self-centered to realize what he did in 2000 was wrong. He claims Gore and Bush would have been the same, that just shows how big an idiot he is.

    Not idiot. Liar. The word you’re looking for is Liar.

  26. Falconfire says:

    Nader is a idiot. Its well documented many of his attacks on capitalism are in response to not being able to go after what he really wants to (like the Covair, which his original target was the VW Beetle, and had been fixed by the time Nader decided to set his sights on it)

    He’s only a public crusader for as much as it makes him money, and gives him a good job. Thats IT. Anyone who believes otherwise is sorely deluded to his intentions. If you honestly believed he wants to protect the consumer in the US, I have a set of ceramic steak knives to sell you for 20 bucks.

  27. ColdNorth says:

    @fejjnagaf: “luring voters to blow their votes on a candidate with no chance of winning.”


    Since when is voting for the candidate who best reflects a voter’s view a waste?

    Perhaps all the people who became disenchanted with the Clintonized Democratic Party decided to use what little political power they possessed in order to send a message to an organization which they felt abandoned its ideals?

    True: Nader had no realistic chance to win.

    False: Nader allowed W to win.

    This seems to be the argument used by whichever party loses an election during a three-party race. (Anderson allowed Regan to win; Perot allowed Clinton to win; and now Nader allowed Bush to win.) Interestingly enough, all three of these Presidents won re-election with a larger margin than in their original three-party races.

    Nader’s voters in 2000 did, in essence, what the Consumerist seeks to accomplish: Offer an avenue for a small but motivated group of ordinary citizens to tell entrenched interests that their lack of attention to delivering on what they supposedly promise will come at a price.

    Still, Nader did seem like a bit of a pompous ass in how he dealt with the OP. A celebrity should still be polite, even if he has been working all day signing books.

  28. erratapage says:

    My take on Nader is that he’s a little less involved in the rest of the world than the rest of us. I think he serves an important role in the political life of the country–sort of the Greek chorus, if you will.

    He’s what my Mom would call an odd duck. I’m not going to judge him for not signing bags or not knowing what the Consumerist is. I didn’t know about the Consumerist until I knew about the Consumerist, after all.

  29. WNW says:

    Why are seatbelt laws a good thing?

    I’m not a big fan of a nanny state. How do you thin the herd if you legislate common-sense?

  30. hapless says:


    Not only was it cool, it was quite safe by the standards of the day. “Unsafe at any speed” was just hot air.

  31. dualityshift says:

    What? Vader’s alive?

    Seriously though I thought this guy was dead. He’s old enough to be dead.

  32. Anonymous says:


    Naders a GOP puppet and a snake oil salesmen. Everyone knew it at the time except the the naive idiots hoodwinked into voting for him.

    he indeed cost Gore the election, as the vote wouldnt have been as close to allow bush’s SCOTUS boys to halt the recount.

    Next time you go to have your book signed, maybe ask Nader how he feels about his role in the killing of 100s of thousands in the middle east, our new legacy as a torture state, and the loss of the Bill of Rights.

    me bitter? damn right.

    Nader can go rot.

  33. Adam291 says:

    Nader and Ted Stevens should get together and figure out these tubes.

  34. forever_knight says:

    @WNW: oh please. the idiots that don’t want to wear seatbelts (for whatever reason) will be slowly thinned out, as it should be. just because there is ample evidence that seatbelts save lives, result in less trauma in auto accidents, and wearing them means cops won’t write you a ticket for not wearing them is just not enough reason for some people. er, some idiots.

  35. Benny Gesserit says:

    @jgkelley: Old he may be, but a good part of his portfolio (something like $10Mil) comes from Cisco Systems (thanks to his wiki page reporting his presidential run disclosure.) He knows technology when he sees it.

    That said, if he’s still depending solely on books to get his message across, he’s sadly behind the times.

    And, Jebus, if he’s gonna whore like that, he could’ve signed the girl’s bag. Next thing you know he’ll be shaving his head, donning a black wig and showing his vajayjay as he gets out of cars.

  36. infinitysnake says:

    @choinski: I feel for you…I worked for him once, too. :-P

  37. Chicago7 says:


    And their kids, too? Is that OK by you?

  38. Anonymous says:

    ralph new he wasn’t going to make it as president, he just wanted to split the vote.

  39. He’s old enough to be dead.

    @dualityshift: Everybody’s old enough to be dead.

    Ralph Nader Doesn’t Read The Consumerist
    Do many politicians read The Consumerist? The OP said he hadn’t heard of it, not that he thought it was bad or boring. No sense in getting all huffy just because someone hasn’t heard of something.

  40. choinski says:

    One would assume part of running for President is having the wisdom to look around and make reasoned judgements about the political landscape and think through the consequences of your decisions. Granted, third tier candidates with 2% of the vote know they are not going to win, and use their time in the spotlight to call attemtion to whatever it is they need to say. Nader was oblivious to the damage he was doing in 2000. He was in denial when he contemplated to run in 2004. And even today he will never, ever admit to his role in getting Doofus Dubya elected.

  41. j-yo says:

    Ralph Nader has made many valuable contributions for consumer rights in our country but, let’s face it, his good days are over. Now he’s more celebrity (or pariah, depending on how you look at it) than he is advocate. He needs to retire or at least give up the God-complex he appears to have developed over the years.

  42. mac-phisto says:

    @forever_knight: you are spot on with that argument! thin out the blight that is the non-wearers of seat belts! wipe their scourge from the planet!

    this is a slow & painful process though. there are millions of people riding in cars AT THIS VERY MOMENT without their seat belts on & they’re arriving at their destinations WITHOUT HARM! *GASP* THE HORROR! we absolutely cannot have this.

    i propose a new initiative to cure the infestation of non-seat-belt-wearers. instead of “click it or ticket”, it shall now be “buckle it or bullet”.

    & as before, we shall bypass the traditional method of legislating this measure by including a mandatory provision for release of funds (generated on the state level in the form of an excise tax which is constitutionally mandated to be redistributed equitably) in the next highway bill. if cops don’t start shooting violators on site, then no fed bucks for the d.o.t. trucks!

    is doing the wrong thing for the right purpose still righteous?

  43. rjhiggins says:

    The ageism on this site is disturbing. The idea that someone is old (which appears to mean over 40) and therefore out of touch (as defined by not having heard of one of the bazillion Web sites in the world) is laughable.

    I’m well over 50 and I can guarantee you I know more about current technology than 90 percent of the people posting here.

    (And Emily, you go to what is essentially a book signing and are outraged that the author wants to sign only copies of his book? Just goes to show you both the young and the old can be equally clueless.)

  44. SovietBear says:

    @WNW: The problem is that it doesn’t thin the herd, it just raises your emergency room costs and insurance premiums by covering non-seatbelt wearers.

    Now if they changed the law to require cash-only payment upfront to treat non-seatbelt wearers and non-helmet-wearing motorcyclists, I would support that completely.

  45. ColdNorth says:

    I just can’t believe that people can actually blame a third party candidate for “spoiling” an election. It is the absolute paragon of self-delusion and shirking off responsibility.

    When only around around 1/3 of the eligible voters actually get out and vote, and when Republicans typically skew higher on percentage of likely voters who bother to show up and vote, WHY for the LOVE OF GOD did the Democrats just wring their hands and watch Nader “steal away” that “essential” sliver of Democratic voters?

    Were they lazy? Were they naive? Were they arrogant? Were they negligent? Were they bought off? Were they incompetent?

    The blame game can be fun and certainly helps in sulking, but it really isn’t much good for actually figuring out what happened.

    Isn’t it more likely that of the 5% of the vote that went to Nader, probably two-thirds of that group were NOT likely to vote for the Democrats absent their Green / third party candidate? What does that leave? About 1 to 1.5 percent of the voters who might have voted for Gore NOT voting for Gore… But again, these DEMOCRATS were mad at their own party. THEY voted AGAINST Gore.

    Be bitter about the result all you like. I think we still have that right here in the USA. But don’t ignore the fact that it was the apathy of millions of likely Democratic voters who never showed up at the poll that day plus the anger and disillusionment of one or two million more who tipped the election into so precarious a situation as to allow the ramshackle voting system in Florida, the teams of lawyers on both sides of the aisle and finally the Supreme Court to give W an Electoral College victory.

    In the USA, now as ever, we get the government we deserve.

  46. Brian Gee says:

    @choinski: I voted for Nader in 2000. I voted in California, a state which Gore won by over 1.5 million votes. Had I voted for either Gore or Bush, my vote truly would not have mattered. Had the Green Party managed to get the 3% (or was it 5?) of the popular vote, we’d have 3 parties getting federal funding at election time instead of just the two. Sucks that they didn’t. Nader didn’t win the election for Bush. If Gore had been more compelling, he would have won (even though he really did…ugh…).

    If the media would portray presidential candidates as individuals with varying opinions, as opposed to just which team they play for, maybe Gore would have won. This isn’t sports, where supporting your team for arbitray and irrational reasons are part of the fun. Voting “Republican” because you’re a “Republican” is just plain stupid. If your “team” won the 2000 Presidential election, you’re partially responsible for the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq.

  47. mac-phisto says:

    @rjhiggins (& other similar comments): “(And Emily, you go to what is essentially a book signing and are outraged that the author wants to sign only copies of his book? Just goes to show you both the young and the old can be equally clueless.)”

    when i was younger, i went to a signing event to get a baseball signed by mike schmidt. i wanted him to sign my baseball b/c it was a ball i caught at a phillies game that had other teammates’ signatures.

    do you know, he would only sign a ball purchased there for like $20? even when my dad offered to buy the ball if he would just sign the other one i had, his “agent” (or whatever) refused.

    it was right around then that i stopped caring about baseball…

  48. Anonymous says:

    @Brian Gee:
    Ah yes, because only republicans supported action in Iraq.
    I forgot.
    I also forgot how well the democrat party has done in bringing troops home and showing them support.
    Perhaps you haven’t heard about the democrat proposal to label the deaths in turkey a genocide, but allow me to fill you in on what the left is really doing.
    See, our military relies on turkey right now as a supply line directly to our troops. Silly things like fuel and water come through turkey.
    And now, the left wants to destroy our political relationship with them so our troops can’t get fuel or drinking water, effectively ending the war by putting our troops directly in harms way.
    Spare me the political brow-beating.
    There are still those of us who support our efforts in Iraq and haven’t been poisoned by the rhetoric from the left.
    We all want the troops home. Some of us want to bring them home when we’ve stabilized Iraq and given the people there a chance to self-govern. The left wants to hurt the world view of our country and take drinking water out of the hands of soldiers on the ground.
    That sure is something to be proud of!
    Why LEGISLATE an end to the war and be upfront about it when you can simply label something a genocide, destroy our credibility with a partner nation, and end the war over something that happened almost 100 years ago and no one but the democrats is interested in right now?
    After all, that’s the ‘ethical’ congress folks like you voted in. Honest, upfront people who claimed to want to end pork projects, then shut down the agency that tracks them and refuses, with alarming regularity, to disclose pork funding.
    Yeah. Riiiight.
    Nader’s effect on the election did hurt gore’s chances, like it or not. While he wasn’t DIRECTLY responsible for Bush winning, he played his part.
    Someone asked how voting for the ‘best man’ is a waste?
    Because those votes would likely have resulted in Gore winning certain districts that he lost.
    Hence, a vote for nader was a de facto vote for Bush.

  49. AlexPDL says:

    The man is a moron and an unwiting (selfish) tool of the Republican party. Now I learn he’s a jerk too? He handed the country to the Republicans in 2000. Good job Nader!!! Lets remember the Republican party even funded his efforts to get on the ballots of several states.

  50. AimeeGee says:


    I don’t think that anyone is trying to say that a “politician” who doesn’t visit a random web site is disturbing. I think most of us are disturbed by the fact that a predominant “consumer advocate” doesn’t read a predominant consumer rights blog. That is what I think makes him “out of touch.”

    As for his presidential bids, I agree with Brian Gee (are we related?) that the “Nader made Bush win” argument is moot and that most of the states with high Nader vote counts were states that still went to Gore. (Although the people who voted for Nader in red states should probably have thought things through a little more). This allows me to conclude (in my own crackpot way) that the Electoral College is why Gore lost the election, not Nader.

  51. tcolberg says:

    Maybe it isn’t necessary for Nader to read the Consumerist because he has staffers whose job it is to scan the news for issues. As long as he gets the information presented here, it doesn’t really matter if he knows the blog’s name.

    @FEJJNAGAF Even if it was the left’s ulterior motive to end the war by cutting off supplies to Iraq, it wouldn’t be “putting our troops directly in harms way”. The Pentagon doesn’t just send troops out into the streets without guns or food because they couldn’t ship them to Iraq. Also it must be said that there are many ways to get supplies into Iraq– Turkey is not the only path. Spare us the political FUD.

  52. Bay State Darren says:

    @dualityshift: We’re all old enough to be dead. It comes at all ages.

  53. uricmu says:

    Nader’s tragedy is that he has no charisma and is not particularly friendly. I’ve tried speaking to him once at a booksigning and he wasn’t any friendlier.

    American presidents are typically the “old, wise and dependable father” or the “uncle you’d go drinking with”. Nader’s the bitter cousin that nobody wants to invite for thanksgiving.

    As for him ruining the chances for Gore in ’00: Bull***t. If the Democrats run a brilliant vice president like Gore against the rehabilitated son of a one-term president and still need those measly 3% that went to Nader then the problem is with the dems, not with Nader.

    Case in point managing to have a decorated war hero like Kerry lose on the military issue to said undecorated soldier.

  54. BensAngel says:

    This post is a perfect example of why Nader wouldn’t read Consumerist. Only 15% of anything posted here is worth reading. Having said this, that 15% contains some real nuggets. Nothing Nader wouldn’t already know though.

    No hate, just common sense.

  55. othium says:

    I don’t like Nader much anyway.

    Don’t like Republicans or Democrats either. Anyone who has to depend on being “popular” for a living isn’t the sort of person I would enjoy talking to.

    Politicians.. Bah!

  56. Consumerist Moderator - ACAMBRAS says:


    If you don’t like Consumerist, you are welcome to take your common sense back over to Gizmodo.

  57. Anonymous says:

    Go ahead and deny the facts:
    Close to 85% of ALL of the supplies that get to our soldiers in Iraq come through Turkey.
    So while there may be other ways to get the supplies in, switching is a nightmare and a completely unneccesary one at that.
    It isn’t a partisan thing, it’s a factual thing. Right now, as we speak, there is a water shortage in Iraq for our troops. We are barely getting them enough. Considering the fact that most of it gets moved through Turkey, how long until there isn’t enough if this resolution passes and the supply lines are cut off? How long do you think it will take to divert close to 90% of our supplies through another safe supply line? Is that worth it? We should condemn the horrific past (from 90 years ago) as a genocide and slap an ally in the face NOW? Right now? This makes sense to you? Seriously?

  58. BensAngel says:

    @Consumerist Moderator – ACAMBRAS: Hey, fair play, I didn’t say I didn’t like it. I don’t expect you to satisfy 100% of the population 100% of the time. As I said, “no hate”. Perhaps I low-balled you at 15% though.

  59. sibertater says:


    I hate you. Why do you read this?

  60. Consumerist Moderator - ACAMBRAS says:

    “No hate” — words to live by. ;-)

  61. Anonymous says:

    “The Consumerist” has gained me as new reader. I did a search on “Nader” and now I have heard of the site. Thanks!

    No, Ralph Nader doesn’t sign bags or t-shirts and probably wouldn’t sign your cast either. Nevertheless, he has been and probably still is this country’s greatest private citizen since Martin Luther King, Jr. He probably would sign something you presented to him that can be read. Perhaps this says something about his feelings about celebrity status.

    If the Democrats and Republicans had allowed Nader and Patrick Buchanan into the debates in 2000, which those two parties owned, Nader might have won the debates and become president. Have you read George Farah’s “No Debate”? There ought to be peoples’ debate, not party-owned debates.

    Ralph Nader may be around for years to come and that’s a very good thing. His mother and father both lived into their 90’s. See “An Unreasonable Man” and try to remember why so many enthusiastically rallied, campaigned and voted for him in 2000.

    Now, let’s look at reforming the election process in productive ways: How about Instant Runoff Voting or Preference Voting? How about instant voter registration? How about voting on weekends or setting Election Day as a holiday? How about no Electoral College? How about easier access to the ballot by third, fourth, fifth parties or independent candidates?

    How about shortened election calendars? How about fewer polls and more news coverage of issues? How about voters talking less about who can win and more about who should win? How about voters talking less about voting strategy and more about policies? How about a discussion about the role of the U.S. in the world and where the younger generation intends to take this country?

    One more point: How about a discussion about why those in this campaign’s major party debates who would prolong wars are applauded and why those candidates who advocate for peace are nearly laughed off the stage? Who are we as a people?

  62. cokeorpepsi2008 says:

    Of course Gore and Bush were different – in 2000, Bush didn’t want to engage in nation building. Gore had chastised Daddy Bush for leaving Saddam in place in 1992, claimed Saddam had WMD and terrorist connections . He also supported Clinton in the NATO (not UN sanctioned) bombing Serbia and Sudanese aspirin factories, and decimating hundreds of thousands of Iraqi kids under sanctions. And who can forget NAFTA? And the Telecom Act of 1996?

    No – I’ll take an honest, intelligent and hard-working Nader over another DLC flunky like Clinton – or a Republican.