Nader Takes a Pie in the Face in California

Chickens COME HOME TO ROOST! Couldn't happen to a bigger asshole!

"HA! HA!"

-Nelson Muntz

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51548-2003Aug12?language=printer

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's political scene was looking more and more like a circus on Wednesday, when former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader took a pie in the face during an appearance in San Francisco.

Nader was speaking at an event to endorse fellow Green Peter Camejo for California governor when a man ran into the room where he was speaking, forced a pie in his face, and made a quick exit.

... who pied Bill Gates a few years back?

Nader and his ilk are idiots

I have not been a Nader basher but his idealism to the benefit of Republicans like Grover Nordquist and the detriment of those who don't appreciate coups is wearing my patience thin. Not that he cares obviously, but GOOD....hope there are more pies where that came from.

Oh yeah...people will vote for you then :eyes:

Despite the fact that it really could have been anyone, you assume it's a Democrat. I compliment you on your telepathic skills.

You go off on a tirade condemning a minority of male DUers who use sexist language, yet endorse the public humiliation of a man who helped save innumerable lives.

Nothing may shock YOU, but I am simply appalled.

calling a bunch of asses on their behavior. I'm not sorry for that. There are a couple things I am sorry for...i.e. alienating anyone who burps, farts and is not a sexist.

That has nothing to do with Nader. Yes, he was a great consumer advocate. Camejo won't win. Please explain to me how he is advocating for the underdog by turning California over to Arnold who meets behind closed doors with Ken Lay.

Maybe the Democrats turned it over by not offering a better candidate than Gray Davis.

I am against the recall on the grounds that it is undemocratic and downright insane, but blaming Nader is absurd. The Democrats have become just as bad as the Republicans when it comes to blaming others for their shortcomings.

I can see it now. . .Lieberman loses election 2004 to Bush. Democratic loyalists blame Nader even though he didn't run. "He thought about running therefore siphoning off potential votes," a Democraic strategist was quited as saying.

HE was the INCUMBENT governor...he won his first race in an landslide!

helping Bush beat Gore puts him at a NET defecit I'd dare say. And.....
if the planet "tanks", well.... it's hard to make up for killing off the whole human race.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919

The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. -- Al From, DLC chair

http://prorev.com/greenpages.htm#2004

<snip>

This fits in well with the liberal myth that Gore lost the 2001 election because of Ralph Nader. In fact, Gore lost the election because he was a poor candidate, ran a bad campaign, and failed to separate himself morally from Clinton. Further, not only the Democratic Party, but the liberals within it, made it absolutely clear over eight years that they had no interest in, nor would respond to, the sort of politics espoused by Greens.

A study by the Review of national and Florida polls during the 2000 election indicates that Ralph Nader's influence on the final results was minimal to non-existent. The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa. In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points. In the close Florida race, there were similar results: statistically insignificant correlation when the Gore tally changed by only one or two points, but dramatic non-correlation when the change was bigger.

During almost all of 2000, Bush led Gore with the major exception of a month-long period following the Democratic convention. During this high point for Gore, Nader was pulling a running average of 2-4% in the polls. While it is true that during October, Nader began pulling a running average of 6% at a time when Gore was fading, Gore continued to lose ground even as Nader's support dropped to its final 3%. In other words, despite the help of defectors from Nader, Gore did worse.

Further, as Michael Eisencher reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self-identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush. In other words, Bush did better among these traditional liberal constituencies than did Nader.
=====>

So, in essence, Al Bore and the Democratic Leisure Class screwed the people, and humanity is suffering for it.

"This fits in well with the liberal myth that Gore lost the 2001 election because of Ralph Nader. In fact, Gore lost the election because he was a poor candidate, ran a bad campaign, and failed to separate himself morally from Clinton."

Gore in no way ran a bad campaign. Gore in fact got 51 million people to vote for him, the most ever for a Democratic candidate. That was 14 million more votes than Walter Mondale got in 1984, 9 million more than Dukakis in 1988, 6 million more than Clinton in 1992 and 4 million more than Clinton in 1996. It was the second highest vote total ever received by ANY candidate for the presidency, surpassed only by Reagan in 1984.

"Further, not only the Democratic Party, but the liberals within it, made it absolutely clear over eight years that they had no interest in, nor would respond to, the sort of politics espoused by Greens."

Gee, I wonder why the Democratic Party would not be intetrested in the sort of politics that garners 2.74% of the vote?

"A study by the Review of national and Florida polls during the 2000 election indicates that Ralph Nader's influence on the final results was minimal to non-existent. The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa. In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant."

Hmm.

Nader got 90,000 votes in Florida.

Bush's margin of "victory" over Gore was 538 votes.

1% of 90,000 is 900.

900 > 538.

But the 90,000 votes are just the tip of the iceberg. Nader's real damage to the vote was far more serious. His constant lying about how there was no difference between Bush and Gore played perfectly into Bush's moderate rhetoric and undoubtedly convinced many moderate "swing" voters that it was okay to vote for Bush. Lots of swing voters liked Bush as a person but were concerned that his platform might be too conservative. Then they hear a man with an excellent reputation for honesty and integrity come along and tell them there's no difference between Bush and Gore - so they conclude that Bush isn't too conservative after all. Of course, Nader was lying his ass off, but they had no way of knowing that.

why should you complain when the Repukes do it to Democrats?

Your one-line insults and constant quoting of the same source (even though it's already been refuted previously) illustrates a complete disregard for the facts, and a willingness to ignore any and all information that doesn't support your stance that Ralph Nader is the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Talk about naive....

nothing I've posted has been refuted

You can surely go to your buddy Al From and ask him if he thinks the Democrats lost because of Nader.

I wish more people would read that so the Greens couldn't continue to lie about it so often.

was to help Gore if he was so bad.

except the DLC was taking too much money from Enron...he probably figured Gore's hands were all over that.

Anybody remember the event sponsored at the Santa Monica pier in 2000? The NRA (in part) funded that event. Nader knows all about influence peddlers like the DLC.

I like it when you present facts. :)

I cant make speculative invective with facts!

So if you must foam at the mouth with such classy and unabated relish, indulge that level of political sophistication here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=102

pigs blood on him while they were at it. OINK OINK.

...but not a DUer interested in Democracy or equal justice.

Nader and the Greens are as much an opposition party as Bush and the Republicans.

so....even if the Greens are to the left of the Democrats? Makes Greens the opposition party, and Democrats are the muddle!

Anyone who advocates defeat of the Democratic Party is the opposition.

I'd call pigs blood equal justice. After all, Nader helped elect Bush... he has a LOT of blood on his hands.

the rest of the country is locked in a desperate battle to survive the "bush years" - thanks, in at least some very, very, small, miniscule, almost disregardable - except for the fact that the Dems begged him to drop out for the good of the nation and bush would have lost had he done so - effort by nader to satisfy some Jesus complex whatever the costs....

Oh, I forgot, I just need to get over it....

At least a pie in the face is sweet.

Now, go find your duct tape and plastic, it is almost Sept.

:dem:

guess what, _________, Nader did nothing to assist your boy's loss. Ask Al From! And Democrats still have to find a scapegoat when there's no one else to blame for their own failings.

The gap between Gore and Bush in Florida was 538 votes. Nader got 97,000. Every poll taken regarding Nader supporters said that they'd vote for Gore over Bush by AT LEAST a 2-to-1 ratio had Nader not run. Nader promised not to have his name on the ballot in close states, but he was on the ballot in the closest one, Florida.

The facts are all there, and you willfully choose to ignore them. Nader made the 2000 election close enough for Bush to steal. That is not "nothing", but this won't get through to you, because you will defend this egocentric hypocrite until you are dead, even if he murders small children on TV.

I don't agree. Nader did play a (willfull, imho) part in Gore's majority-vote defeat. Nader could have, and should have had more noble priorities in 2000, again, imho, tho I will grant that no one could ever have imagined just how bad the bush regime would be. On the subject of what happened in 2000, and what role Nader played, we obviously disagree. I stated my view, and you stated yours. Long live freedom.

Looking forward, I really hope the Dems and Greens can find some common ground for 04. I think there should be a Green/Dem summit of sorts where common ground could be identified and priorites could be meshed so that both groups can focus in unison on defeating the growing cancer that is the bush admin. I would hope that that is now the overriding goal of all Dems AND Greens. I don't believe this nation, or this world, has ever faced a greater threat - and defeating that threat must surely take priority over any other issue that might divide us.

Also, I have been nu_duer since I was a new duer, so I'm thinking that should be what fills in that blank in your post.

:hi:

Wow, I put that user on ignore a long time ago. In fact, that's the only one I've ever done that to.

I may follow suit soon.

I find you even less relevant than sgr

I guess you need to have the last word every time.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

when the river burned. IOW, a ____.

Nader looked pissed. Whoever did it got away. LOL.

Dang! :D

hehehe!

is that this was one of those "pie hit men" you can hire in California.

My only gripe against Nader is that he played his hand too long in 2000. He would have made his point and gained some concessions on his agenda from the Dems, if he had dropped out a couple of weeks before and asked his supporters to vote Gore.

In his defense, however, we must always remember that dubya was extremely successful in passing himsolf off as a compassionate conservative implying that he was far more centrist than he actually is....for that reason, Nader saying there wasn't a dimes worth of difference was made to appear apparent to the average voter.

Not many would have voted for Bush had they known about his extreme right wing agenda, PNAC, his evangelistic mission in the ME, and his insatiable appetite for tax cuts.

Idiot got what he deserved.

Thousands of people are already dead because of his huge ego, and more could die before this Bush* nightmare he inflicted on us is over.

What about the harm caused by Clinton? The jobs lost because of NAFTA. The Haitians that suffered because of his inhuman policies. The Iraqis that continued to suffer under him. He has a lot of blood on his hands.

Of course if Clinton were to get a pie in the face, this board would be up in arms.

Contrary to the first print report that said he "took it well", he grabbed a gob off his face and slung it back. Then he stalked around for a long second without starting to clean it off. He looked like the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Hahahaah.

Boos for LIEBERMAN and pie for NADIR----there IS a karma, sometimes. These two have found their symbols and should trademark them, nobody else should use them.

hope the pie didn't have any chemical additives.

...against the Supreme Court...we still might live in a Democracy.

- It's simply amazing. Nader...hate or like him...was participating in Democracy. On the other hand...the Supreme Court made an illegal decision that put one of their own in power. Yet...we rarely see this type of angst and anger directed at the SC.

- Some around here have some really messed up priorities.

The supreme court screwed us. But that does not in any way diminish what Nader did.

Nader is the Devil. Long live Democracy!

No one says Nader can't run, what they are saying is the slime ball knew he would make things easier for Bush buy running and did anyway. And don't give me that he didtn't know, Perot did the same thing before Nader to the GOP, third parties have a well known result.

Continue supporting the Green ol Party, Rove says thanks.

When did Ralph the Corvair Slayer join the Green Party?
I had read a piece where he corrected the writer by saying "No, I don't belong to the Green Party, I just ran as their candidate for President..."

And then his wonderin' aloud about becoming a ReTHUGlican (like he wasn't already) and stirring up some MORE shit.

Nader has an attention addiction. He just wants people to pay attention to him.

...for a hateful, juvenile FReeper rant.

- No wonder the Dem party is so divided and wandering in the wilderness. Too many of you just don't 'get' what happened in 2000. It wasn't about Nader at all. It was about the THEFT of democracy and free elections.

- Making Nader the scapegoat detracts from what really happened and prevents us from a unified front in exposing the fraud and corruption of the Bush* government.

Which is why I wish Ralph would just GO AWAY.

Then maybe people would focus on the problem of the BFEE instead of Nader's "Green Party Snake Oil" that's gonna cure ALL our Ills....

and send all of the good union manufacturing jobs to repressive sweatshops 3rd world dictatorships

creating a bunch of temp/minimum wage jobs doesn't make up for this.

corporate globalization is republicratism at it worst. why do you think the average american household has over $5000 of credit card ebt? no one can make ends meet these days. Perhaps that's why our spineless democratic party leaders joined forces with Bush and the GOP and passes the draconian bankruptcy 'reform' bill last year. gotta protect our generous campaign donors at VISA at all costs, you know.

Nader was dead on in his criticisms of the party. thankfully, we have some candidates this time around who are questioning the drift to right the dlc has given us.

(as for the gop agent bullshit, for the record, nader attacked bush's war agenda only a fews days post 9-11 while gore was busy making "george w bush is my commander in chief" speeches)

.

or better yet, had a progressive record worth running on

Nader ran as a 3rd party after Perot showed the world what 3rd parties do. He knew the effect and went for it anyway. And now that he got his wish, his followers come here and bitch about the democrats.

that's the biggest myth in american politics today. clinton won fair and square and a bunch of bitter gop guys started this nonsense that he stole votes from bush. it's all part of an effort to deligitimize bill and imply that the country is somehow majority-rightwingnut

if you go back and look at the polls he drew equally from both candidates. clinton led bush from the end of the democratic convention until election day. the race actually tightened and his lead shrunk some when perot reentered just before the debates.

the ones in florida (voter disenfranchisement, fuzzy math on vote totals) and the ones of the supreme court (bogus court decision) who did more to out the occupant in the white house than did anyone else.

when it happens again in 2004...will nader still be to blame?

I've already told you that I don't think Nader cost Gore the election. IMO, Gore won.

What I said is that Nader WOULD (if he could) ruin it for the Dems. I was speaking about intent, and not his actual effect. As always, the Greens were not competent enough to attain their goals.

I never realized that ONE MAN could be sooo incredibly powerful.Ralph Nader caused Al Gore and the Democratic Party to lose an entire presidential election. Is the Democratic Party that WEAK???

Nader didn't STEAL ANY votes that BELONGED to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party threw away those votes in order to appease their Corporate Sponsors.

Get a clue. You are looking at a MOVEMENT!

but Nader's an ass just the same.

You are looking at a MOVEMENT!

I would say the same thing, but I doubt we'd agree on what kind of "movement"

:toast: well said.

to power. MOVEMENTS are great. I support them when they are well thought out.

Because he screwed over the GOP and showed the country what 3rd parties do to their mainstream counter parts.

You are looking at a MOVEMENT!

of lemmings.