Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Nader Accuses McAuliffe of Suppressing Votes

Anita Kumar

Consumer activist Ralph Nader accused Terry McAuliffe Thursday of orchestrating an effort to remove him from the presidential ballot in 2004 when McAuliffe was chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Nader said that McAuliffe offered him an unspecified amount of money to campaign in 31 states if Nader would agree to pull his campaign in 19 battleground states.

"When you get a call like that, first of all it's inappropriate,'' Nader said in an interview. "The other thing is if you don't immediately say no, it's like taffy, you get stuck with it."

The latest charge against McAuliffe, who is in a hotly-contested three-way Democratic primary for governor, calls into question -- again -- whether his political career is a liability for him as a candidate.

McAuliffe isn't denying the charge. His spokeswoman Elisabeth Smith said in a statement McAuliffe "was concerned that Ralph Nader would cost John Kerry the election as he did Al Gore in 2000 and give us another four years of George W. Bush."

"It looks like Ralph Nader misses seeing his name in the press,'' Smith said. "Terry's focused on talking with Virginians about jobs, not feeding Ralph Nader's ego." 

The accusations are outlined in a new book, Grand Illusion, The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny, by Theresa Amato, Nader's national campaign manager in 2000 and 2004, who writes about the barriers to third-party candidates.

"This seemed to be a very undemocratic kind of thing to do,'' Amato said. "The head of the Democratic party was telling Ralph where he could or not could run."

By Anita Kumar  |  May 28, 2009; 3:38 PM ET
Categories:  2009 Governor's Race , Anita Kumar , Election 2009 , Terry McAuliffe  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McDonnell Unveils Anti-Gang Plan
Next: Connolly Endorses Keam in 35th District House Race

Comments

You know, this Terry McAuliffe is just such a lovable guy. And integrity? When I see that cheezy smile, that's all I think of!!

Why is an offer to a legitimate candidate to cease campaigning in certain states in exchange for money not a case of interference in a federal election, a felony I believe??

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | May 28, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

So it took Nader 5 years to decide that this information was news worthy? Well, I guess it would, because it's not. Maybe Nader should have taken McAuliffe up on his offer, then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. Just think about it, had Nader not played games with the 2004 election, over 3,000 American's most likely would not have lost their lives in Iraq chasing those mythical WMDs.

Posted by: Beingsensible | May 28, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I do find it a little weird concerning the timing. And I simply don't believe it. Nader does not have a shy and retiring demeanor. Would he have kept quiet about this?

No.

He hates us Democrats.

Ralph Nader just wants to stick it to us without whatever lie possible. This is a man who felt the need to call Barack Obama an uncle Tom after he was elected.

And have been angling for an appointment ever since. Wow what a way to request a job.

Posted by: 411Tibby | May 28, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

IMO Terry McAuliffe is a sleazy, shyster-like political lizard who wouldn't get my vote (I'm a Virginia Democrat) under any circumstances in this election.

Should he win the primary, I give Bob McDonnell (R) a fair chance at winning the general election because I think numerous people like me will either stay home and refuse to support a creep like McAuliffe, or even vote for a moderate (by Va. stds.) Repub. like McDonnell.

McAuliffe was at the center of the Clinton machine and all that made it so repulsive to some Dems (like me) ... the last thing I want to see or I think we need is to bring back that circus sideshow.

Posted by: fendertweed | May 28, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

And if Nader doesn't run in 2000, we wouldn't have Sept. 11, we would have fewer jackbooted thugs guarding Federal buildings, we wouldn't be fighting two immoral and illegal wars, and we'd be driving electric cars.

Posted by: bs2004 | May 28, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Scum bag Dems cheating. Say it ain't so.

Everyone knows there the lowest life form on the planet only second to their supporters.

Posted by: askgees | May 28, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

And if Nader doesn't run in 2000, we wouldn't have Sept. 11, we would have fewer jackbooted thugs guarding Federal buildings, we wouldn't be fighting two immoral and illegal wars, and we'd be driving electric cars.

Someone's been watching to many cartoons. Get a clue.

Posted by: askgees | May 28, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I do find it a little weird concerning the timing. And I simply don't believe it. Nader does not have a shy and retiring demeanor. Would he have kept quiet about this?

No.

He hates us Democrats.

Ralph Nader just wants to stick it to us without whatever lie possible. This is a man who felt the need to call Barack Obama an uncle Tom after he was elected.

And have been angling for an appointment ever since. Wow what a way to request a job.

Posted by: 411Tibby | May 28, 2009 4:36 PM


With that statement we would have to assume that, since Obama made a comment about the special Olympics he hates the mentally challenged??

Be careful what you say. It can be applied both ways.

It amazes me that the lib idiots in the US think THEIR ALWAYS RIGHT. With that said, look at the states suffering the most. All blue states. All have the highest unemployment figures, the highest drop out rates. Sanctuary for illegal aliens and took millions from the FEDS. Which you HAVE TO PAY BACK but unfortunately you're broke? I guess you're plan hasn't worked out to well. Good luck dumb f$%k.

Posted by: askgees | May 28, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Just think about it, had Nader not played games with the 2004 election, over 3,000 American's most likely would not have lost their lives in Iraq chasing those mythical WMDs.

Posted by: Beingsensible | May 28, 2009 4:27 PM

********************************************

As an Independent, I love watching the two parties play their blame games when they come up short in an election that was theirs to lose. When it is the Republicans, it is always 'voter fraud.' With the Democrats, it is always 'voter suppression.' However, the Nader Excuse outshines ever the Stolen Florida Excuse for nonsensical silliness.

Listen, moron. Kerry lost by over three million votes. Nader got a little over 400,000 votes. There is not a single state where Nader's vote total came close to the winning margin for Bush. Iowa is a case in point. Bush won by over 10,000 votes. Nader got less than 6,000 votes and the Libertarian got approximately 3,000 votes, presumably from otherwise Bush supporters. Nader did not cost John Kerry a single electoral vote. Got it?

It is time for you Democrats to stop crying about Nader and face reality. We got stuck with eight years of GWB because the Democratic Party couldn't come up with any better candidate than an arrogant, effete, hate-America, Northeast liberal. It took quite a show of stupidity to make Bush look good by comparison in 2004, but you Democrats, led by Terry McAuliffe, managed to pull it off.

And, now you are going to do the same thing again in Virginia by nominating T-Mac to run against Taliban Bob. Good job, idiots.

Posted by: hisroc | May 28, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Let's dismiss this Clintonista who got great personal wealth through his political connections as did a number of Clintonistas. Let's focus on three guys who have paid their dues in Virginia's political trenches-- Deeds, Moran, and McDonnell.

Posted by: hz9604 | May 28, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

In the case of Nader, McAuliffe should have just sent some goons to whack him upside his head. Nader -- that shrill ideologue who ensured GWB would get elected in 2000 -- has no credibility about anything. NADA. Zilch.

As for Nader's timing (even assuming his allegations are true), I'm left to believe Ralph is, how should I say it, promiscuous in his motivations for bringing this forward now.

All that said, this ordeal doesn't say much for McAuliffe. But in the larger picture, so what?

Go look at JFK's 1960 campaign in West Virginia. You'll see a lot of money actually did changed hands under the talbe.

Posted by: loulor | May 28, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

so nader brings this forth today?
what a whiney baby.
ralph...
you are one expired politicain.

not a huge fan of mcauliffe's either but hey...
ralph, you really need to get over yourself.

Posted by: hemnebob | May 28, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

In 2000, Nader said there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two candidates (Bush and Gore)

I wonder if he still believes that.

Posted by: noaxe397 | May 28, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Nader looks increasingly like the next Ramsey Clark....

Posted by: gmeagher | May 28, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm no fan of McAuliffe but I also find it amazing that Nader waits 5 years to release this information. But then I have to be honet if I had to rank public officials I would rank Nader down around Bush and Cheney. After all it was his stupidty and ego that gave us 8 years of George W Bush. The sad fact is Nader still doesn't see that. Not once has he said 'You know I wish I hadn't run in 2000." But that would get in the way of his stupendous ego. And for just once I wish Nader would direct his anger and spleen against the party who did more to bring about global warming and less consumer protection and no government oversight instead of the Democrats. So Ralphie, how much money does the GOP pay you?

Posted by: dre7861 | May 28, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I fail to see how bribing Nader to get out of the race as a bad thing. We already had Nader to thank for 4 years of that idiot Dubya running this country into the ground....thank God someone was trying something to prevent 4 more.

I'm actually starting to warm up to Terry after this incident.

Posted by: SWB2 | May 28, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

50 years ago Nader had one round of good with a "rolly" car. Nothing that he has done since then has been anything but destructive to this county. He did what he has done for his worthless ego. He's a nobody today with no credibility.

I again am sorely disappointed that the Washington Post would print something that has absolutely no verification. The credibility of the Washington Post is ahead of it's actual bankruptcy. Where did the Washington Post's journalistic standards go? Where are the Post's ethics?

Posted by: Willis3 | May 28, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Nader's ego gave us George Bush, the Iraq War, Abu Ghraib, deregulation of the financial markets, and a slew of other atrocities.

I used to respect Nader. But his ego is truly out of control.

Posted by: Hillman1 | May 28, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I can't decide which I dislike more: McAuliffe or Nader. Either way I don't think this is an issue.

If Nader wants to harp about the electoral system, I would suggest he start working on a campaign to draft an amendment creating proportional representation with say a 10% threshold. Many political scientists would concur that such a change, while probably impossible to create, would be the most effective mechanism for opening up the two party system in the US.

Posted by: johnnyneuron | May 28, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Elect McAuliffe--act stupid and believe any bs handed out. He is your archtypical politician. He never worked a real day to get his money. He is sleazy and would be a continuation of the selfish, self-serving , deceitful person in politics today. His aim if you cannot see it, is to prepare himself to run for President one day.

Posted by: Mindboggle | May 28, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Did it ever occur to Gore or Kerry that maybe if they had bothered to speak about the importance of raising the minimum wage, or of making health care more affordable, or of the folly of giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, then they just might have won in a landslide?

Maybe if they had addressed peoples' needs more directly, then there would have been no need for a Ralph Nader to run.

Their failure (ironically posing as Democrats in name only) to do so made it essential for Ralph Nader to run- for the sake of all of us.

Posted by: sufi66 | May 28, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

the lack of reading comprehension as evidenced in many comments here is breathtaking:

1. the news is out due to a book release by nader's campaign manager.

2. "McAuliffe isn't denying the charge. His spokeswoman Elisabeth Smith said in a statement McAuliffe "was concerned that Ralph Nader would cost John Kerry the election"

3. by NO measure did Nader cost Kerry, nor Gore, the elections. Gore gave the 2000 election to Bush: as sitting VP, president of the Senate, neither he nor any Democrat stood with a US Representative to contest the election.

4. blaming nader for 9-11 and soldiers having died in Iraq is absolute insanity.

4. the 2 party system is corrupt and inherently rigged: see #2, this is all BUSINESS AS USUAL.

5. Nader's "uncle tom" comment stings, perhaps because it has a ring of truth.

we are seeing how Obama is not so far out of step with many, many Bush policies and attitudes toward corporate welfare, civil rights, and endless war promulgation.


i still like Obama, just not as President.

Posted by: forestbloggod | May 28, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

But we're not talking of the Republicans that mostly funded Nader's campaign in 2004 as a spoiler for Kerry. This cuts both ways, and Nader was just a pawn in a bigger game.

Posted by: AbeRnr | May 28, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

As a VA democrat, I wouldn't give McAuliffe the time of day, let alone my vote. No, not after that crap he pulled on the nomination eve where Obama won, but he actually had the arrogance to introduce HRC as "the next POTUS" to her adoring audience. What a snake, sleaze and wealthy carpetbagger! I will vote for Creigh Deeds. He was born and raised here and has more than the necessary intellect and credentials to do a spectular job for us as our next VA Governor.

Posted by: MadasHelinVA | May 28, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I would gladly pay Nader to go away, is it still an option?

He is singlehandedly responsible for the havoc wreaked by George W. Bush.

Posted by: pilgrim1629 | May 28, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Ralph Nader is a bitter old man who can't figure out why the children don't follow him and his pipe now that he drove a lot of the rats out of town.

He is undoing the good he has done by refusing to accept the fact that there may be no Messiah coming, and that he, in any case, ain't it.

Posted by: practica1 | May 28, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Ralph Nader has an ego as big as all outdoors! I really have a difficult time believing this story; as others have blogged, why did he wait 5.5 years before coming forward? Seems like the Ralph Nader we all know and love would have been yelling "stop the presses" so he could have gotten the publicity in 2004.

Posted by: cva42 | May 28, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I personally hold ralph nader responsible for the election of bush on both occasions. and now he waits five years to make these charges? what an attention seeking opportunistic blow hard!

Posted by: dlpetersdc | May 28, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

"When you get a call like that, first of all it's inappropriate,'' Nader said in an interview. "The other thing is if you don't immediately say no, it's like taffy, you get stuck with it."

******************************************

As the Church Lady would say, "Well, isn't that SPECIAL?" So much for integrity and principles.

As to all the delusional Democrats posting here about how Ralph cost Kerry the 2004 election, see my 5:04 PM post. Nader had no effect on the election. Period. Kerry ran an awful campaign matched only by Gore in 2000. Painful as it is to accept, Democrats have only themselves to blame for eight years of Bush/Cheney. Get over it.

Posted by: hisroc | May 28, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey askgees all politics aside, they're, their and there are three different words. I'm serious. Get a dictionary and find someone who knows how to use it(you might need a democrat for this.). Then look up the word irony. It's a word that sort of describes the notion of a guy like you calling anyone an idiot.

Posted by: mack1 | May 28, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Virginia voter and we do NOT need this kind of dirty politics in our state.

Posted by: OrangeLine | May 28, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Why does Kumar seem to be running the anti-Terry McAuliffe campaign through the Washington Post? Just wondering Kumar- making a little cash on the side?

Nadar may not have had a huge impact in 2004, but he did spoil the election in 2000, and his continued belief that he is relevant is astounding.

Nadar doesn't like McAuliffe for trying to keep him from delivering us 4 more years of darkness? Oh, well, McAuliffe just got another supporter then.

GO T-MAC!

Posted by: patgdc | May 28, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

As a life long Republican, I am shocked that the Democrats would do something so incredibly evil, so corrupt, so sleazy.

We hold the copyright.

Posted by: DaveMiner | May 28, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Just remembered that, did you Ralph?

By the way, thanks once again for mr. flightsuit. That's your fault, in case you don't get it yet.

Bug off.

Posted by: binkynh | May 28, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Call me crazy but isn't that illegal? I mean it's not like Illinois where anything goes.

Posted by: alstl | May 28, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Let the whining and hand wringing of Democrats begin! Massive well entrenched corporate-funded Democratic Party abused by one man. Waaaaaah!!!!!

Posted by: geezjan | May 28, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Puleez - gawd I despise pols and don't understand the partisan lemmings. Don't like Nader either but gawd we need a third choice. An aside, someone blamed 9/11 on Bush?
Geez I thought it was during his predecessors reign that these guys were going to flight school; that we fired one missile at Osama;that the intel community was decimated and that it was at that time the agencies wouldn't share info. See that's the trouble with partisan lemmings- just don't want to take responsibilty. And yes, Bush and his boss Cheney, very bad people but so was Clinton.

Posted by: petekam | May 28, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Ralph Nader was famous and respected before I was born. Now he is just famous. Then again, OJ is famous, and so is Dick Cheney.

When Ralph Nader reduced himself to race-baiting in order to manufacture a controversy and try to engage then-Sen. Obama, I lost what little respect for him I possessed.

Mr. Nader should simply fade into retirement and stop trying to get attention. He has nothing to contribute.

Oh, and his insistence in splitting the vote in 2000 cause the election of President Bush. So Ralph Nader is complicit in the deaths of thousands. What a jerk.

Posted by: bbb444 | May 28, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry, bbb444 and the rest of you whiners. Obama is looking to match Bush's Iraq death toll in Afghanistan. He'll just do it in a way that you approve of.

Posted by: geezjan | May 28, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

obama is starting to say that the economy is better while millions go without work and millions more will follow...
this election day and next years election day we all have a chance to dissapprove of what they are doing to our country...
they are counting on many of us not showing up...
be there, vote...
it's the only choice you have...

Posted by: dwightcollinsduarte@yahoo.com | May 28, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to Ralph Nader this country got "W"'d. The demise of the United States should be traced to the narcissitic delusions of a capitalism apologist. Two words to Nader: "Go Away".

Posted by: Political_Stratgst | May 28, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

If Nader felt it was wrong why wasn't it reported at the time it happened or did he ask for more money than they were willing to give?

Posted by: rlj1 | May 28, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand this angle that says, "why is he raising this now?" as if to suggest the charge can't possibly be true. McAuliffe's people are not denying it. Why can't his apologists just admit the man tried to make a deal?

While we're doling out blame here, don't overlook those millions of harebrained idiots who voted for Bush in the first place. Those are the people who should be seeking absolution for all the needlessly spilled blood, economic disaster, and ecological catastrophe that we may never be able to set right.

Posted by: midwestern1 | May 28, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

McAuliffe '09 "SLEAZE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN"

Posted by: cschotta1 | May 28, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Mention Ralph Nadar and many Democrats show their true colors as people who, despite their rhetoric, are actually very anti-democratic. It's all about winning so you can force change on society and punish the non-progressives.

Posted by: AnotherContrarian | May 28, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

askgees, your party lost.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Gawd, you're stupid; a true Republitarded idiot from the word "go".

Posted by: camera_eye_11 | May 28, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

typical McAuliffe, turn a substantive and extremely serious allegation that he has violated basic democratic principles and ideas of integrity into a red herring attack that it's all really about Ralph Nader's ego. It's unfortunate so many people fall for the distraction of such empty name-calling on his part.

as for those of you who are angry with Nader for no good reason, i'm sick of repeating the same responses so if you're willing to hear them look at the older posts on betterthannader [dot] blogspot [dot] com

Posted by: betterthannader | May 28, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

As one who feels that I owe my life to Nader because of his seatbelt advocacy, I find it painful to see him lose the kind of stature this man had. What happens to people when they get a public persona? Terry McAuliffe is a disgrace; he should be a Republican--he acts just as crazy as they do.

Posted by: Barbara5 | May 28, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a McAuliffe supporter (still trying to decide between the other two), but I can't see this hurting him much. Ralph Nader is up there with Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney when it comes to enemies you want to have if you're running in a Democratic primary.

Posted by: novamama | May 28, 2009 7:36 PM | Report abuse

No real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Anything to win, no matter how sleazy, while driving away all potential candidates of good character. That's democracy in action!

Do you want the dirtbag on the right or the dirtbag on the left? Choices...choices...

Posted by: thoughts | May 28, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

McAuliffe has the appeal of a used car salesman, but Nader should be blown up during the half time show at the super bowl. His insane narcissism put Bush in the white house, and the rest is self explanatory.

Posted by: TRACIETHEDOLPHIN | May 28, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Even though I hated seeing Gore lose to Bush, I think it's pointless to blame Nader.

First of all, there are typically a few longshots on the ticket, and it's seldom an issues. But if one of them actually does take enough votes to rock the boat, then the major candidates should take note. Gore could have run a better campaign.

If McAuliffe was worried about Nader's appeal, he should have strategized how to legitimately appeal to the voters he feared Gore was losing.

Posted by: MontaraCA | May 28, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Gore only has "Gore" to blame for losing Tennessee.

Posted by: cschotta1 | May 28, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

This is an ongoing story, which is only appearing in the mainstream media because of McAuliffe's career.

Back in 2007 Nader initiated several suits against the Democratic Party for strenuous efforts to keep him off the 2004 ballot:

The first is Nader v Democratic National Committee, 2007ca-7245B, case # 08-7074; the second is Nader v McAuliffe, 1:07-cv-1101. Again these cases were filed back in 2007. The Post doesn't mention the history here, and certainly never covered the story at the time, hence all the "well he never" posturing in the previous comments.

Nader has also been embroiled in a court case resultant from the Democratic Party's successful effort to keep him off the 2004 Pennsylvania ballot since the summer of that year. Publications like Ballot Access News and Independent Political Report have followed the story. It isn't surprising that few people have heard of it.

It is a little surprising the level of vindictiveness some people still feel. If its wrong to run on an anti-corporate, universal health care, individual rights and open government platform, then we are never gonna get anybody worthwhile elected to anything.


http://votenader.org
http://www.ballot-access.org

Posted by: DJSilverfish | May 28, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

You should have taken the money, Ralphie.

It would have been the only smart thing you've ever done in politics.

Posted by: pali2600 | May 28, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Terry is a sleaze ball. Everyone in politics knows him as someone you would not trust with your grandmother. He has sold his soul.

Posted by: jhpbriton | May 28, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Good old Ralph Nader. The man who helped bring us "W" for 8 years with his spotlight seeking self affirmation. Maybe he and Dick Cheney could get a house together and discuss how they would run the country. Nader is like a bad penny.

Posted by: bfjam | May 28, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

So it took Nader 5 years to decide that this information was news worthy? Well, I guess it would, because it's not. Maybe Nader should have taken McAuliffe up on his offer, then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. Just think about it, had Nader not played games with the 2004 election, over 3,000 American's most likely would not have lost their lives in Iraq chasing those mythical WMDs.

Posted by: Beingsensible | May 28, 2009 4:27 PM

If this allegation is true, it is very newsworthy.
The invasion of Iraq took place in March of 2003. Are you saying that if Kerry won he would have immediately removed all combat troops? Kerry is to the left of Obama on Iraq?
This needs to be investigated. Supressing votes is a serious allegation.

Posted by: billy8 | May 28, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

It amazes me that the lib idiots in the US think THEIR ALWAYS RIGHT. With that said, look at the states suffering the most. All blue states. All have the highest unemployment figures, the highest drop out rates. Sanctuary for illegal aliens and took millions from the FEDS. Which you HAVE TO PAY BACK but unfortunately you're broke? I guess you're plan hasn't worked out to well. Good luck dumb f$%k.

Posted by: askgees | May 28, 2009 4:58 PM


Nuts on both sides think they are, apparently including you.
Your comments on the "blue states" are way off, especially when it comes to "taking money from the feds". Blue states, on average, pay more than they recieve in federal tax dollars. That is a fact.
Have to pay back?? What are you talking about? Pay back to whom? That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

Posted by: billy8 | May 28, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry, bbb444 and the rest of you whiners. Obama is looking to match Bush's Iraq death toll in Afghanistan. He'll just do it in a way that you approve of.

Posted by: geezjan | May 28, 2009 6:38 PM

If by "approve of" you mean going after thugs that attacked America, as opposed to a country that did not, then yes, I'd assume a lot of Americans approve of that.

Posted by: billy8 | May 28, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

If you want to make a Democrat as insane, apoplectic, irrational, histrionic, and delusional as a Republican, just say the word "Nader." Try it--it's fun!

And you thought the Republicans were the only ones able to believe that the weak can threaten the strong?

Cry me a river, Democrats. The only things that gave Bush victories in 2000 and 2004 are Republican voters, the Supreme Court, massively inept Democratic candidates, and massive Republican election fraud. And let's not forget the Democrats who voted for Bush--a number larger than all who voted for Nader.

You are pathetic.

Posted by: geezjan | May 28, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Fendertweed for your beautifully descriptive take on McAuliffe

"sleazy, shyster-like political lizard"


Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | May 28, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

If you want to make a Democrat as insane, apoplectic, irrational, histrionic, and delusional as a Republican, just say the word "Nader." Try it--it's fun!

And you thought the Republicans were the only ones able to believe that the weak can threaten the strong?

Cry me a river, Democrats. The only things that gave Bush victories in 2000 and 2004 are Republican voters, the Supreme Court, massively inept Democratic candidates, and massive Republican election fraud. And let's not forget the Democrats who voted for Bush--a number larger than all who voted for Nader.

You are pathetic.

Posted by: geezjan | May 28, 2009 8:15 PM

Wow.
This guy (or gal) has it exactly right.
GOP Voters... Yep.
The Supreme Court... Yep.
Inept candidates... Gore couldn't win after 8 years of bliss on his watch and there is no one less likeable than Kerry, so... Yep.
Massive GOP election fraud... Unproven, but plenty of allegations, and where there's that much smoke, there's probably fire.
Don't know the numbers on Dem's voting for Bush. Makes sense in 2000, not so much in 2004, but in theory, I'd agree with that.
Basically, blaming Bush's victories on a few misguided hippies who voted for an egomaniac is not a good idea. Excusing the possibility that Democrats may have tried to buy the egomaniac out of the election... Even worse, and hypocritical considering it amounts to election fraud.
Great post.
Those on the left (myself included) cannot take an "ends justify the means" approach to election fraud. Its hypocritical. If this happened (McCauliffe offering cash), something needs to happen. I don't know if he can be charged with a crime (not a lawyer), but something has to happen. You can't buy elections (no irony intended).

Posted by: billy8 | May 28, 2009 8:23 PM | Report abuse

to geezjan:
"If you want to make a Democrat as insane, apoplectic, irrational, histrionic, and delusional as a Republican, just say the word "Nader." Try it--it's fun!"

That stuff might be true, but the guy is a total a$$. I'm not one of those people who thinks "Nader ruined America", but he is a little full of himself for someone who wrote a book 30 years ago.

Posted by: billy8 | May 28, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

And if Nader doesn't run in 2000, we wouldn't have Sept. 11, we would have fewer jackbooted thugs guarding Federal buildings, we wouldn't be fighting two immoral and illegal wars, and we'd be driving electric cars.

Oh come on, you cant honestly believe the stuff you are saying! Drinking your democratic bathwater again, watching too much cartoon channel, and living in a fantasy world. Grow up!

Posted by: John-from-far-away | May 28, 2009 8:38 PM | Report abuse

And if Nader doesn't run in 2000, we wouldn't have Sept. 11, we would have fewer jackbooted thugs guarding Federal buildings, we wouldn't be fighting two immoral and illegal wars, and we'd be driving electric cars.

Oh come on, you cant honestly believe the stuff you are saying! Drinking your democratic bathwater again, watching too much cartoon channel, and living in a fantasy world. Grow up!

Posted by: John-from-far-away | May 28, 2009 8:38 PM

________________________________________

Liberalism "is" a fantasy world, where adults go who refuse to grow up!

Posted by: cschotta1 | May 28, 2009 8:42 PM | Report abuse

"His spokeswoman Elisabeth Smith said in a statement McAuliffe "was concerned that Ralph Nader would cost John Kerry the election as he did Al Gore in 2000 and give us another four years of George W. Bush."
____________________________________

Is that supposed to justify his unethical actions??? As an independent who voted for Obama, I find funny the absolute hatred Dems have for viable third party candidates. I think that Dem foot soldiers actually hate third party candidates more than Reps.

And for the record, Nader didn't cost Gore the 2000 election. Gore cost Gore the 2000 election. It never should have been close. Gore actually believe his spin and thinks he's smarter than he is. He is his own worst enemy.

Posted by: clamb1 | May 28, 2009 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Let us never forget that Ralph Nader is the reason GWBush became President in both 2000 and 2004. He is a destroyer who is to blame for all that followed. Little Ralphie has an ego that is still wildly out of control.

Posted by: dsrobins | May 28, 2009 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Well, billy8, not voting for Nader because you disagree with him or don't like him or think he's an a$$ is what democracy is supposed to be about.

But I would think that being full of one's self is a requirement for the job of running for president.

Posted by: geezjan | May 28, 2009 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Let us never forget that Ralph Nader is the reason GWBush became President in both 2000 and 2004. He is a destroyer who is to blame for all that followed. Little Ralphie has an ego that is still wildly out of control.

Posted by: dsrobins | May 28, 2009 8:45 PM


Perhaps if the Dems had more attractive candidates, eh?

Posted by: cschotta1 | May 28, 2009 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Ralph for your 2000 gift of whats his name...

Posted by: jato11 | May 28, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Isn't this some sort of crime? How can this not be against the law? The stench of corruption coming from the Democratic party will soon bee so strong that not even their mouthpieces at the Washington Post will be able to cover it up.

Posted by: get_it_right | May 28, 2009 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Most people in America are too stupid and ignorant to understand the lack of principle and integrity in the American political system.

That Terry McAuliffe offered Ralph Nader money not to campaign in certain states is a perfect example of this lack of principle and integrity.

Ralph Nader is the complete opposite of the usual American politician; principle, character, integrity, intelligence radiate from the man. But most people don't want to acknowledge that. They would rather keep suggesting that Nader was responsible for putting Bush in office.

And here I thought it was the idiots who voted for Bush who did that. A secondary cause could have been Al Gore's insipid campaign. If there is one thing Nader can not lay claim to, it is that he put Bush in office.

But people will keep repeating that tired old mantra because they need to have a scapegoat for the failings of the Democratic Party.

Is it any wonder that this country is quickly sinking into the abyss?

Posted by: Krebscat | May 28, 2009 9:12 PM | Report abuse

This is Nader's standard procedure to keep his name in the press.
McAuliffe is the BEST candidate to represent Virginia!

Posted by: angie12106 | May 28, 2009 9:19 PM | Report abuse

If ever a guy deserved to be suppressed, Ralph Nader would be that guy.

Posted by: i_go_pogo | May 28, 2009 9:21 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe the comments I'm reading here! People, Nader's been talking about McAuliffe's interference with his 2004 campaign SINCE 2004. The problem is that nobody's been listening. Blame the media, and blame yourselves for not paying attention. Come on all you sheep, read the writing on the wall. The Democrats (and Repubs) see any independent and "third" party candidate as a threat to their power, and so they look for ways to smear that candidate's good name and reputation. It's good old-fashioned, dirty politics, and it happens everyday. Blaming Nader for Bush's election in 2000 is to call all third parties second-class citizens. Blaming Nader for the war, not GW Bush is a contemptuous statement against democracy and freedom! What a joke! You all are sheep!

Posted by: InstantRunoffOK | May 28, 2009 9:23 PM | Report abuse

I knew from talking to Ralph Nader in 2004 that Nader had decided to run I was invited to a small dinner at the DNC with McAuliffe. We were potential "major donors' and McAuliffe was asked about Nader during the pitch, and McAuliffe promised everyone in the room that he was in touch with Nader and could guarantee that Nader wasn't going to run. I asked him about it afterwards and he dismissed me by changing topic. McAuliffe will say anything to get what he wants.

Posted by: samsimon | May 28, 2009 10:30 PM | Report abuse

A lesson for you sheep on the 2000 election ...

Yes ... 250,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush in 2000. That's more than the votes Nader and all third parties combined got in Florida that year. And then Bush still had to steal the election to win.

Then, of course, Reform Party candidate Pat Bucanan took votes from Bush in several states in 2000.

The whole "spoiler" idea is completely illogical. There is no such thing as the two-party system in America, according to the Constitution. It only exists at the will of the Dem and Repub parties.

"Third" party candidates have a right to run for office - same as the Dems and Repubs who think they own all the voters. Likewise, YOU have the right to NOT VOTE FOR THAT CANDIDATE.

That's what free, open and FAIR elections are all about! That's what democracy is all about.

Blame yourselves, Democrats, and blame your broken joke of a two-party system for the atrocities of the last eight years, not Nader.

Posted by: InstantRunoffOK | May 28, 2009 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Why should McAuliffe deny it? This is a great idea, akin to the “vote exchange” programs that Democrats started in 2000.

Nader should have been asked a followup question: “If the purpose of your campaign was to gain the nationwide 5% needed to obtain federal matching funds, as you constantly said it was, why didn’t you accept this offer and go get those votes where they were easier to get, in 31 noncompetitive states, as opposed to continuing to campaign in a smaller number of more contested battleground states, where the votes would be harder to come by, but each one would be taken directly from the Democratic candidate? Was it because your real objective was and has always been to punish a Democratic party that you feel unjustly rejected you as its natural leader?”

Nader wasn't disenfranchised, he was given a golden opportunity to pursue his stated goal, and he rejected it, because starting a real third party was never his real goal.

Ask yourself, in 2000, why Nader spent the last three weeks of the campaign campaigning in only three states: PA, OH, and FL. If what he really wanted was to make it to 5%, he would never have done this. But that's not what he wanted. I find it hilarious to be called a sheep by someone who STILL believes what this snake-oil salesman is selling.

I was disappointed we couldn’t get anybody better than McAuliffe in as interesting a Democratic state as Virginia. But Nader is just a joke, a carbuncle on the American left that needs to drop away. His level of self-delusion (or is it just mendacity?) is astonishing.

Posted by: shorthope | May 29, 2009 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Nader is a joke and trying to remain relevant. He is bitter towards the former DNC Chair. This is a non-starter and a non-story.

Posted by: demfuture2000 | May 29, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

What amazes me is the way the American public has been bamboozled by the Dems & the GOP into thinking "they" are the only two political players in the country.

Those miscreants have convinced most of the people to demonize Ralph Nader whenever the opportunity arises. The facts are they are scared stiff of the guy, he's smarter than any of "them", including the "Harvard Genius", Barry O. and the "Arkansas Rhodes Scholar" Bill C. He cares more about the people than any of "them", he speaks the truth while "they" lie to the people and over the years he has done more for the people than any of "them" have and he did it with a lot less power. He did it with brains. Which is something very little of "them" have between their ears. Which puts most of "them" on a par with many of the American public.

Posted by: Boots1 | May 29, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Nader is obviously a horrible person, but he has made a credible accusation that McAuliffe's spokesman has basically confirmed. Why would anyone who cares about the integrity of our electoral process possibly vote for him? Especially, when there are two other idealogically similar candidates who are not sleazy. The people who are defending McAuliffe need to take a long look in the mirror.

Posted by: sourcreamus | May 29, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Of course the system is not friendly to third parties, that is the way the founding father's wanted it. There is a sound logic to that position.

So maybe Nader, instead of trying to build a third party should be concerned with taking the Democratic Party back from Corporate interests.

Otherwise, unless we get rid of the winner-take-all Electoral College, a 3rd Party cannot survive.

Posted by: beverlytarlow | May 29, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"This seemed to be a very undemocratic kind of thing to do,'' Amato said. "The head of the Democratic party was telling Ralph where he could or not could run."

"Undemocratic?" I call it strategic. He didn't threaten or put a gun to his head did he? Frankly, haven't we found out that Republicans donate to Nader to split the Democratic vote?

Karl Rove destroyed any ethics that may have existed in elections a long time ago.

This hardly seems like a story.

Posted by: beverlytarlow | May 29, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

What happened? Nader just woke up and decided he needed a couple of more lines of newsprint.

Posted by: mehrenst1 | May 29, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I think that all great men have their "time", Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Swaggert, the list goes on and on. Some folks have their "time" early in their career, Ralph Nader for instance. If they could just accept their place in history and retire from public view, the world would be a lot better for it.

Desperate times, sometimes call for desperate measures, the Bush administration would have us believe that's true...by the truck load.
'Why not Terry McAuliffe, based on Naders' past irresponsible behavior, he was about to ruin Kerry's chances in the 04' election. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. A good 4,000 of our precious troops are gone forever. Bush keeps harping on "we saved lives", well Nader's selfish behavior cost lives, in my opinion.

Posted by: bebop42 | May 29, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Um, how many of you folks actually read the article to the end? I mean, it wasn't all thatlong.

"The accusations are outlined in a new book"

Contrary to what a lot of you seem to think, this wasn't a case of Nader suddenly "5 years later" issuing some statement. The release of the book is what raised it.

(I expect some of the knee-jerk Nader-haters are now going to claim that he somehow manipulated the timing of the release of someone else's book for some nefarious reason or another.)

Posted by: LarryE1 | May 29, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Ralph Nader is so desperate to be remembered as anything but a foil for the 2000 Preseidential election and the reason this country was saddled with W. for 8 years. It's sad, really. If we had any kind of elder care, we could actually attend to his clear cries for help. Guess he'll have to suffer at the hands of the insurance companies like the rest of us.

Posted by: toddadam | May 29, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Ralph Nader is a self-consumed idiot. And I ought to know. I use to work with the guy!

Posted by: GTFOOH | May 29, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Why do Democrats get mad at Nader,
when the people who voted for Nader did so
because he represented what we want.

I thought that was democracy.

In 2004, Bush, of course, was proud of the war.
Kerry did not say he would leave Iraq or Afganhistan.
He said he would increase military spending!

What’s a person for peace going to do?
I voted for the one who represents my view.

Oh yeah, I forgot,... that’s not strategic.

Did you Democrats forget that only a couple of your party
voted against any escalation of war 2000-2008 and on...and on...?


Posted by: Gabrielina | May 29, 2009 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Who cares? Nader is a professional spoiler. People were wise to him in 2008 and BHO won despite Ralph's antics. I see Nader's still poisoning the water to skew the electoral process to benefit who knows (he never tells us).

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 29, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Nader is a phony. He hates that the Democrats view him as an egotistical spoiler. And the Republicans quietly fund his campaigns just to peel off votes from the Democratic candidate. Both parties know him all too well. He is one very twisted snake who only shows up at election time to harass Democrats. In my book that makes him a Republican tool.

Posted by: afgail | May 30, 2009 2:58 AM | Report abuse

Nader is nothing but a spoiler who really has never been relevant. Honestly, has he ever REALLY had any chance whatsoever to attaining office? He knows he isn't a viable candidate and so tries to spoil anything and everyone. Nader is redundant and should be completely ignored. Were I a politician I would welcome Nader NOT supporting me. A no vote from the lunatic fringe is a yes vote for a good candidate.

Posted by: rrowleyarizona | May 30, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't WANT McAuliffe to win the nomination. I will not vote for him. That is why I have every intention of voting in the primary for Moran. That is who I hope wins but I am not sure he will against McAuliffe.

Posted by: kannita | May 30, 2009 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Why is it okay for a political party chair to bribe his competition? Why is THAT the kind of system we want in the U.S.?

Why is it okay to blame anyone but the VOTERS for the outcome of an election, such as 2000?

... Cry if you want, Democrats, but whether you like it or not, your party doesn't OWN this country's left-leaning voters. Your party has to EARN each vote in the same way that a "third" party candidate does.

Like it or not, Democrats, but your party didn't enter the 2000 election, or any thereafter, any more entitled to votes than did Nader or any other candidate - big or small.

The Constitution didn't create the American two-party system. Dem and Repub party officials with an agenda did.

If millions of Americans didn't desire an alternative to Gore in 2000, then Nader wouldn't have gotten nearly 3 million votes.

The evidence that Nader did NOT spoil the 2000 election is overwhelming: Bush cronies in Florida (Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush) manipulated the Florida re-count and the election while Gore stood by and did nothing. Statistics show that 250,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush - more than twice the number of votes Nader got in Florida. Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan, as well as the Libertarian Party candidate, syphoned votes from Bush in several key states, effectively helping to balance any effect Nader had on Gore.

If you actually believe that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election, then you are a sheep. And if Nader did NOT spoil the 2000 election, then what was wrong with him running in 2004 and 2008?

Some of us are sick and tired of the Democrats being too chicken to stand up to the Republicans and too chicken to stand up to corporate interests on behalf of the American people.

If the Democrats were so against the war, then why did the Clinton administration push an Iraq regime change resolution through Congress prior to 2000? Why did the Democrats in Congress vote for Bush's war and fully fund it for seven years? Why did the Democrats nominate a pro-war candidate in 2004, and a semi-pro-war candidate (Afghan theatre) in 2008?

Where is the logic for blaming Nader for 2000, the war, and the atrocities of the Bush administration?

Posted by: InstantRunoffOK | June 3, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company