« Global warming alert! | Main | My Primary Vote »

The Knucklehead of the Day award

Today's winner is the Palm Beach Post editorial board. They get the award for the vindictive, bitter editorial they ran this morning titled 'Nader: Wrong in 2000, and delusional in 2008'. Maybe the low point of the Post's diatribe comes when they write-

Mr. Nader says one reason he's running now is that Democrats have not forced President Bush to end the war in Iraq. In fact, if Mr. Nader had not run in 2000, America would not now be bogged down in Iraq - the wrong war in the wrong place. Mr. Nader, demonstrating either that he is out of touch with reality or does not care about the truth, denies any responsibility for the Democrats' loss in 2000 and thus any responsibility for the thousands killed and wounded and the hundreds of billions wasted.
Blame Nader, Blame Teresa Lapore, Blame the US Supreme Court, blame the voters in 2000 that don't have the Post's 'wisdom'. I feel a tad bit sorry for Randy Schultz and company that they still can't get over the election. Maybe this will help them get over it, I name the Palm Beach Post editorial board today's Knucklehead of the Day.

The entire editorial is below the fold. You may want have eyewash handy for afterwards.

Forty-five years after making his reputation as a consumer advocate, Ralph Nader is as deceitful and arrogant as the corporate titans he used to expose.

Mr. Nader is selling politics rather than cars, but Americans learned after 2000 that his brand of false advertising can have fatal consequences. That year, Mr. Nader ran for president as the Green Party candidate. He drew nearly 97,000 votes in Florida, most of them siphoned from Democrat Al Gore. If Mr. Nader had not participated, Florida's electoral votes and the presidency would have gone to Mr. Gore, who would have won the state without controversy. The butterfly ballot would be mostly forgotten.

In 2000, Mr. Nader's main campaign theme was that there was no real difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates. In retrospect, that statement sounds as ludicrous as the denials by the auto executives in the 1960s that they couldn't make the safety changes Mr. Nader advocated without making cars prohibitively expensive. Unfazed as only someone blinded by ego can be, Mr. Nader ran again in 2004. On Sunday, he announced that he will try yet again. Barack Obama had the most appropriate comment: "Eight years later," Sen. Obama said, "people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about."

Mr. Nader says one reason he's running now is that Democrats have not forced President Bush to end the war in Iraq. In fact, if Mr. Nader had not run in 2000, America would not now be bogged down in Iraq - the wrong war in the wrong place. Mr. Nader, demonstrating either that he is out of touch with reality or does not care about the truth, denies any responsibility for the Democrats' loss in 2000 and thus any responsibility for the thousands killed and wounded and the hundreds of billions wasted.

Announcing his candidacy, Mr. Nader also chided Democrats for failing to enact "decent" energy policy. That criticism simply reminds voters that they could have had a president leading the fight against global warming rather than a president who spent most of his two terms denying the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2000, Mr. Nader received 2.7 percent of the vote. In 2004, he received just 0.3 percent. Mr. Nader blames the steep decline on Democratic legal maneuvering that kept him off the ballot in several key states. In 2004, though, Republicans - especially in Florida - also worked to get Mr. Nader on the ballot. The more important reason for the dropoff in support was Mr. Nader revealing that he has become a self-important fool. The Nader brand used to mean something. These days, there's nothing new inside the box.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/28137.

Comments (9)

I am continually amazed. </... (Below threshold)
Pretzel_Logic:

I am continually amazed.

It's a mistake to blame Nad... (Below threshold)
Fran:

It's a mistake to blame Nader for the loss. As is well-known, the Republicans rorted the count, not just in Florida but in several other states as well. Had Gore had a modicum of spine rather than a surfeit of jelly in his back, he'd have kicked up a stink, but he blinked and the moment passed. This final hurdle showed he wasn't up to the job.

While it was shocking to see the Republicans get away with it, it's a good thing that all this is well-known, and if Gore had won through getting the extra votes that Nader siphoned, most would have been none the wiser.

Whose Fault is the blackout... (Below threshold)
epador:

Whose Fault is the blackout?

Fran...the Goracle lost fai... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Fran...the Goracle lost fair and square...get over it.

"Every Vote Counts" (In li... (Below threshold)

"Every Vote Counts" (In liberal counties run by liberal where they can change the outcome of the election, otherwise the votes don't count.)

Ralph Nerdier is just one o... (Below threshold)
Spurwing Plover:

Ralph Nerdier is just one of those persistant consumer busybodies i hope he ends up in a corvair

Fran... Gore lost fair a... (Below threshold)
Fran:

Fran... Gore lost fair and square...get over it.Posted by Michael


Most educated Americans know that he was robbed fair and square by the gang surrounding the Bush clan. Some are in public denial because they liked the result.

I suspect you may be one of those, but you're not fooling anyone.

Fran

(tweet!)Personal f... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

(tweet!)

Personal foul, number 7:

Resorting to fallacy ad populum, with no credible sources to back up claim.

Additionally, a fallacy of Circumstantial Ad Hominem is invoked to justify fallacy number 1.

15 yard penalty.

Now James,You didn... (Below threshold)
Fran:

Now James,

You didn't really expect a thesis here did you? There's a mountain of evidence that one could sift through, but in the end, few would read it and many would already be aware of it.

The old 'cite?' objection is silly in a forum like this. My central point was not that the moment should be revisited -- that has long passed -- but that Nader did not cost the Democrats the 2000 campaign, his 90,000 odd votes in Florida notwithstanding. If anyone did, it was Gore, for showing more respect for the office of President than the integrity of the process leading up to its award.

Bush's actions presaged how he would operate in office and Gore's how he might have. In a way, Nader was right -- neither deserved to win.

Fran




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy