"I have decided to run for president," Ralph Nader declared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday morning, after listing a litany of problems in America and citing polls that have found citizen discontent with the direction of the country and with both main political parties. Washington, D.C. is "corporate-occupied territory," he said, and he accused Barack Obama of leaning "toward the corporate side." He also had harsh words for Hillary Clinton, and harsher still for John McCain. Nader's campaign website promises to fight "corporate greed, corporate power, corporate control," citing among other scourges polluters, agribusiness giants, nuclear power, and Big Oil. Also on his site, he calls for a carbon tax, which the other remaining presidential candidates do not support, and he declares, "No to nuclear power, solar energy first." Do you think Nader should run? Take our poll.
source: Meet the Press
New nukes? A fair shot, not a free ride
To unlock wind power, put a price on carbon
Comments
View as Threaded
GonzoDon Posted 4:02 am
24 Feb 2008
But what kind of on-the-ground, unglamourous, back-breaking work has he done in the last 7 years to build an alternative political movement (be it Democrat or Green Party) with any real political influence? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Instead, he runs these vanity campaigns every 4 years. Anybody can do that.
Sheee-it. If Nader steals enough votes from the Dems to elect McCain in 2008, he should be pummeled senseless with unread copies of 'My Pet Goat' from G.W. Bush's Presidential Library.
Permalink
Tom Twigg Posted 6:00 am
24 Feb 2008
If there is a bright side to this development, it may be that certain people who had been reluctant to endorse will feel compelled to do so now. What do you think, Al?
Permalink
paxmeow Posted 6:34 am
24 Feb 2008
Permalink
Tim McKee Posted 8:44 am
24 Feb 2008
Karen Silkwoood?
chernobyl anyone?
Obama took big money from the Nuke Lobby!
http://www.votenader.org
Permalink
mzungumasai Posted 8:59 am
24 Feb 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:31 am
24 Feb 2008
Second, more DEMOCRATS voted for George Bush in Florida in 2000 than voted for Ralph Nader, so why don't you blame them instead of Nader? Every qualified American citizen has the right to run for president, and no one is entitled to run without competition.
Third, you continue to focus your wrath on Ralph Nader and the Green Party (of which I am only a marginal supporter, but not because I think they sabotage the pro-corporate Democrats) instead of on the Democratic Party for being so pro-corporate and so pro-war and instead of our dysfunctional electoral system that lacks the instant runoff voting that would eliminate the "wasted vote" syndrome. The Democratic party does not deserve the support of those of us who are opposed to these things and will never get it. The undemocratic American electoral system does not deserve the support of anyone who believes in democracy. Your wrath would be much better focused on ending private campaign financing and fixing the electoral system than on criticizing a person who spends his life making personal sacrifices for what he perceives to be the good of the majority.
Fourth, by settling for the lesser of two evils instead of supporting what you really believe in, you are part of the problem. If you actually support the pro-corporate, pro-war, anti-environmental policies of the Democratic or Republican parties, then by all means vote for one of their candidates. But if you don't, stop voting for and supporting them and support people with whom you share political ideologies and viewpoints. I'd like to see some honesty in the posts by people who oppose Nader: Do you believe in what he stands for and oppose what he opposes, and therefore you're just mad at him for strategical reasons because you believe in lesser of evils voting? Or are you a supporter of the liberal side of corporate America, AKA the Democrats, and oppose Nader because of his ideologies and positions?
Fourth, Ralph Nader had to be talked into running by the Green Party the first time he ran. He lives on a mere $30,000 annually and donates the rest of his income, even though he has a lot of money and could live far more comfortably or even opulently. THIS is the type of person who should lead nations, not gas bag corporate lackeys like the ones the Democrats and Republicans always nominate, with the extremely rare exception of George McGovern.
Fifth, while I agree that Nader has virtually no chance of winning at this point, he gives those of us who refuse to compromise our beliefs at the ballot box a chance to vote for someone we actually support. Like another poster, I don't see what else this accomplishes, but that's enough for me, considering that whoever gets elected will continue to destroy the planet. As Jerry Brown once said, the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is the pace of destruction. While the slower pace of the Democrats is not as bad as the faster one of the Republicans, I'm strongly opposed to both. The issue is NOT whether there's a difference between the Democrats and Republicans, but instead what the differences are and whether the similarities are greater than the differences.
Finally, let's look at the differences between the positions of the parties that the fanatic Democratic supporters posting here would have us believe are so huge.
1. War
McCain is a total war monger, voted for the Iraq war, and wants to keep U.S. troops there for 100 years. Clinton voted for the war, has continually voted to fund it, and would only remove some troops from Iraq while leaving tens of thousands indefinitely. Obama was not in Congress during the vote on the war and said publicly at the time that he opposed it. However, he has continually voted to fund it, same as Clinton, would leave tens of thousands of troops there indefinitely, wants to increase the size of the U.S. military by 100,000 troops, and wants to attack Pakistan (the latter not being a bad idea, as it should be given back to India from which it was stolen in order to provide a client state for the West).
2. Environment (aside from war)
McCain has continually voted for bad environmental legislation and against the few slightly good bills to come before the Senate during his tenure. He supports coal and nuclear power, would do nothing to reduce American overconsumption and nothing to reduce driving, cars, or roads, does not oppose destruction of natural land (AKA development, as in opposing the Roadless Rule for National Forests), and will do nothing to help lower human population, like providing easier and cheaper access to abortions (in fact, McCain changed his pro-choice position about a year ago and now says that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, so it's clear that this is not an important issue for him) or advocating for a one-child policy. Clinton and Obama support coal and nuclear power, would do nothing to reduce American overconsumption or reduce driving, cars, or roads, and will do nothing to help lower human population, like providing easier and cheaper access to abortions (though they support a woman's right to choose in theory) or advocating for a one-child policy.
These are the two most important issues and it's clear there's little difference between the candidates. I dont' claim that there's no difference, just that the similarities are much greater than the differences and that none of these candidates would ever get my vote with these disgusting positions. While Barak Obama seems to be the least offensive of this pathetic group, that's certainly no reason to support him.
Permalink
graci01 Posted 9:32 am
24 Feb 2008
His reply is the Democrats need to work harder.
Had it not been for Nader's EGO, we would not have the moron (BUSH) in office we have had for almost 8 years.
At a time I voted for Nader, being for the Environment. But when the stakes were as high as with this Corrupt Administration is and Nader still runs we can blame no one but idiot voters and NADER himself for an EGO trip he refuses to give up.
After what Nader has done (caused) 'all because he refused to see reality' we have a country in worse shape than we have ever had.
IMO, he should NOT be allowed to run as he too has caused all this blood Americans have on their hands from Bush's wars. Even though Bush has never won an election fairly and was beaten by the popular vote. How fair is that.
But had Nader kept his nose out of it we would have had another President for sure and the Country in a great shape not hated by every country in the entire world.
Stay out of it Nader. I despise this terrible Blood on my hands which is in essence your 'FAULT' entirely.
Permalink
randino Posted 10:17 am
24 Feb 2008
(1) OK, focus on this thought real clearly. We are operating in the United States. Not Canada. Not France. Certainly not in some country in the lesser developed world. Any successful movement first has to have a keen sense of the terrain it operates on. The overall left in the country, resoltuely refuses to recognize this fact.
(2) There are those of us who want to make change. There are others who want to get to heaven. There are some of us who want to make change. There are others who want social therapy. Let's ask ourselves why the hell we are here.
(3) We need to have a good sense of the difference between politics as practiced in the US, and how movements are built and interact with politics.
(4) How does social change happen in the United States? Stunned silence is usually the response to this question, but it is a question that must be asked every day. I really don't think that those who say they are dedicated to social change have the foggiest f'in idea of how it happens in this country. Not a clue.
Consider the above and maybe we can start to have an intelligent conversation.
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 10:32 am
24 Feb 2008
Focus on significant change, not superficial change that only puts off the inevitable. So, we need 1) to eliminate private campaign financing, 2) get proportional representation, like every "democracy" aside from the backward U.S. and U.K., 3) get instant runoff voting, so that there are no "wasted" votes, though I don't agree that they're wasted, 4) restrict the campaign periods to the 30 days immediately preceding the elections, and 5) require all TV networks with major news departments (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) to provide and equal amount of free airtime to ALL candidates and prohibit censorship of any of them.
If those who are supporting Clinton or Obama now but think that we should have much better would use their energy for the changes outlined above, any gains would greatly exceed anything they could hope to accomplish by electing another pro-corporate, pro-war Democrat, even if (s)he isn't as pro-corporate or pro-war as the Republican.
Permalink
nunyerbus Posted 12:20 pm
24 Feb 2008
The democratic party has defeated somewhat progressive candidates such as Edwards, and aggressively marginalized others such as Kucinich. This party is no friend of people who support a platform that includes the following (and other related) items:
A serious, aggressive approach to environmental problems
single-payer health care
a non-imperialist foreign policy
reduction of corporate influence in policy-making and the end of excessive subsidies.
I agree wholeheartedly with Wolverine's comments about how voters settling for lesser-of-evils candidates exacerbate the problems of choice in our government.
I also remind those who disagree with my support of Nader that they are still allowed to vote for one of the other candidates, so don't worry, he hasn't wrecked everything. Remember, there are three candidates you can support, and they all are in favor of "clean coal" !!
Permalink
jedimomma Posted 2:38 am
25 Feb 2008
So if you want real change, you want a genuine third party with a genuine chance of winning, rather than a "Select One: RED or BLUE", work to change our electoral system. Third parties don't have a chance in the system we have now, and typically only have a divisive effect on our system. Change the electoral system, then run your candidates. But before the system changes? There's just no point, and only damage can result.
Permalink
davedenali Posted 2:59 am
25 Feb 2008
Permalink
KPSKhalsa Posted 3:25 am
25 Feb 2008
The other two need to be prodded and poked so that we won't get a "safe" let's-not-offend-anyone type of campaign. We need to be real with the Hispanic community of Florida and their unreasoning hatred of anything that smells even vaguely of caving in to Cuban demands for recognition and and the liftingof tariffs. We need to be real about the Mexican immigrants, legalor illegal, who are the underpinning of our low wage economy. The middle class must face up to corporate interests and become the political force it needs to be. I'm not saying Ralph's the solution but someone's got to talk about this stuff and force the other candidates (including McCain) to discuss a lot of questions openly instead of dealing in platitudes.
Permalink
bobmaginnis Posted 3:27 am
25 Feb 2008
Permalink
roncastle Posted 3:35 am
25 Feb 2008
Stupid Is Forever - Ignorance Can Be Fixed
Ralph should put this sign on the wall in his office and do nothing but read it outloud continuously until after the election.
Cheers,
Ron Castle
Permalink
eriqa Posted 4:02 am
25 Feb 2008
Anyone can sit around and advocate for the most perfect, progressive, wonderful agenda that involves no compromises, no campaign fundraising, and no making deals with the opposition.
When you start actually having to appeal to the 90% of U.S. voters who don't agree with you, i.e., WIN - things get a lot more complicated a lot more quickly.
Being powerless can be safe and comforting. You don't have to make any compromises, any hard decisions. I think a lot of the Naderites like living in that safe, easy place where they can feel like perfect saints. But it's street fighters, not saints, who make change in politics.
Permalink
jpmy Posted 4:04 am
25 Feb 2008
In France, we had Nicolas Hulot, a famous environmentalist and journalist, who used his popularity and credibility to make the candidates sign before the press a plaidoyer for the environment.
http://www.pacte-ecologique.org/index.php
We also had an umbrella-NGO called the "alliance for the planet" bringing our main environmental NGOs together, analysing in depth the environmental impact of the programmes, giving notes, and putting the results on a website for the public.
http://lalliance.fr/archives/lalliance2007/indexf824.html ...
I believe you guys should find your own ideas to make things move in this campaign...
For your information, I recently found a nice resource on Big Oil and candidates :
http://oilmoney.priceofoil.org/federalRaceGraph.php
It's not just the americans who will be impacted by these elections, it's the whole planet's environment...
Permalink
Hombre Secreto Posted 5:52 am
25 Feb 2008
Permalink
jasper Posted 6:33 am
25 Feb 2008
Permalink
ChiefRabbit Posted 8:13 am
25 Feb 2008
Ralph, I for one am very glad Al Gore didn't try to run for president again because he's been and will be more effective in promoting green alternatives (look at what he's accomplished already!). You, sir, have done the same and reach even greater heights, if you put your energy into it.
I support what you stand for but please don't stand in the way of what may be our best chance of redemption nationally and around the world.
Permalink
bobbyvee Posted 10:10 am
25 Feb 2008
a) No one really thought he had a chance at being elected president
b) Most people thought he was an indispensable part of George W. Bush being elected president
Now, that is just my own un-scientific ascertation, but I don't think its too wildly far-fetched. Point being: Al Gore lost the Florida vote recount by some 500+ votes in favor of George W. Bush. Ralph Nader garnered some 97,000 votes in that fine state. Now, you might say at this point that these nearly one-hundred thousand Nader voters wouldn't have voted for Gore anyway, but I'd say its a stretch to assume that 97,000 principled people, alternatively given a choice between Al Gore and George W. Bush, would have stayed home and said 'to hell with voting', or would have voted for George W. Bush, the candidate most opposed to their views. Hey hey, whoa, I didn't just make that up. That's what exit polls gathered; that 48 per cent of 2000 Nader voters would have otherwise voted for Al Gore. That 23 per cent would have voted for George W. Bush. And the rest would have done "other". Like, perhaps, writing in Yoda on the ballot or stayed at home pining for a perfect democracy. It doesn't take Pythagoras to work out that equation.
And I know. The arguments for voting for Nader in 2000 abounded, such as...
In a democracy, voters can choose the candidate most aligned with their values.
Voters should choose a President who will protect the environment and attack corporations who seek to degrade the environment and exploit labor.
Mr. Nader has 'elevated the discourse' in this campaign.
OK that's all fine and good. I'm a progressive, and I jive with alot of Mr. Nader's stances. But I can't go all the way with Ralph. Here are the answers to those very questions I asked myself in 2000:
Sure and True. (And it'd be swell if that didn't play into the hands of the politicians most opposed to the progressive movement)
Yes. And is the best approach to this through public office or through running for public office every four years?
Huh? If the three word phrase, 'elevating the discourse' were as important as another three word phrase that creeps its way into politics, say, ' commander-in-chief', than I might be comforted by that rhetorical flourish.
Really, though, my personal malaise with Mr Nader exists via his fairy-tale assertion that 'there really isn't much difference between the two on the major issues.', referring to Gore and Bush in the 2000 campaign.
Really? I know they say that hindsight is 20/20 and nobody can fault Mr. Nader for not having a properly functioning crystal ball,
but this statement strains credulity.
Let's examine their accomplishments since 2000 in a mix-and-match format:
a) George W. Bush
b) Ralph Nader
c) Al Gore
------------------
a) started some awesome wars and accomplished a record national deficit
b) won a Nobel Peace Prize and became an international environmental spokesperson
c) did something (exactly what?) against corporations until the Year of the Rat ended the long wait until the next presidential election
------------------
Mix and match and have fun! There are only right and wrong answers in this exercise. But sadly its not so in politics.
Which comes back to the point of this post.
I have to agree with "jpmy" , from France, in saying: It's not just the americans who will be impacted by these elections, it's the whole planet's environment..."
I live in Poland, and people here wonder: "What influence is the next President of the United States of America going to have in the world?"
Well?
The answer is: a fu*king huge influence, as always.
Permalink
GreenNPR Posted 11:20 am
25 Feb 2008
At least Nader doesn't accept corporate money unlike the Mr. Obama:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&am ...
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 11:40 am
25 Feb 2008
Well, they can't take my vote for granted. The last time I voted for a Democrat for president was George McGovern in 1972, and McGovern's presidential bid was sabotaged by the jerks who run the party and refused to support his candidacy. Since then, the Democrats have not nominated a presidential candidate who espouses any significant views that I have about war or the environment, the two issues on which I base my vote for federal offices. Now, if the Democrats were to nominate Dennis Kucinich, I'd vote Democratic. I would even consider voting for John Edwards. But Clinton or Obama? Gore? Kerry? You've got to be kidding! These people are all highly pro-corporate and support U.S. imperialism, and wouldn't do anything I support.
So, all of you who are so pissed that Nader is running again, convince me why I should vote Democratic. Seriously. If you make a legitimate argument, maybe you'll even convince me. But over years of these discussions, I've never seen anything that approaches changing my mind. And don't bother trying to convince me about lesser of two evils, I'm a no compromise kind of wolverine.
Permalink
nunyerbus Posted 11:00 pm
25 Feb 2008
Before going further about how to get in the game, I would ask if the positions taken by Nader are worth pursuing. If "90% of U.S. voters" disagree with the positions, then probably not. However, I suspect that on the issues, Nader's views are, in general, fairly popular. Examples include (from Nader's campaign site):
No to nuclear power, solar energy first
Adopt single payer national health insurance
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare
So for us comfortable Naderites (many of whom were likely recent Kucinichites), the question is, how can we gather up the support of people who support our platform and get in the game? Then we can worry about which items to keep and which ones to give up.
When I see all the attacks against Nader related to the 2000 election, his ego etc. I think its a real shame. It is less about how disrespectful people are being to someone who is trying to help and more about the missed opportunity for our country. The message from 2000 should have been, "Wow, we got a lot of votes!" "How can we capitalize on this" "How can we get some candidates who are more appealing than Ralph to move this agenda forward?" "How can we hold the Democrats feet to the fire with this big voting bloc we've developed?"
These are the types of questions the "street fighters" eriqa refers to would ask. Instead, what we get is an attitude of giving up and accepting a crop of democratic candidates that are only slightly differentiated from the republican nominee.
Politics is a long, slow process. If we never take a stand for what we believe in, we will never achieve success.
Permalink
AndieG Posted 11:30 pm
25 Feb 2008
Gore WON in 2000! (popular vote). If we had worked withthe Green Party and had Instant Runoff voting, or 'clean elections', he would have been President! (and exactly what has the Democratic Party done to fix our voting system?)
I for one, voted for Gore (I liked his lock-box), volunteered and donated to Kerry (very Green), and CAN NOT vote for either Hillary or Obama!
Not because of Gender/or Race; Based on the ISSUES! (ya know those things we hear so little about these days) Both 'D' candidates (McCain isn't even up for discussion), ARE Corporte/Centrists! Both a for Nuclear Power, and Coal! Both are for 'Free' trade (not Fair), Both are for Corporate De-Regulation, (NOT Media Reform) Obama wants to start: Private Retirement Accts (just like Bush)& cut Social Security Benefits by 45%!!
* The Nation mag. article by Max Fraser,
'Subprime Obama' 'three chief economic adviser's'
google them Cutler, Goolsbee, and Liebman!
I Will NOT give up my right to vote, just because I can't and won't vote Demacratic! I should in a democracy have the right to choose!! I'm not taking a vote away from anyone! My choose is to stay home (NOT), or vote third party!
Go to the Green Party web site, monthly meetings and 85 candidates! A Real Progressive Platform!
or http://www.votesmart.org
Permalink
trailhikingal Posted 2:53 am
26 Feb 2008
Permalink
nytwings Posted 3:20 am
26 Feb 2008
I think Nadar is a closet Republican.
Permalink
mrbball Posted 3:49 am
26 Feb 2008
Unlike the Republican or Democratic candidates, Nader is the only one not owned by corporations. I do not like being ruled by dishonest corporations and right-wing nuts: the current situation. Gore would have been an improvement over Bush, but a vacancy in the office would also have been better.
Permalink
wildhawk905 Posted 4:02 am
26 Feb 2008
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 5:37 am
26 Feb 2008
So does Kucinich. And Edwards. And Al Sharpton. And Lieberman. And Al Gore. And any of the 50 state governors.
But they are not all running their own independent campaigns. Why? Because (a) they know it would create chaos under our current electoral system -- that's why we have primaries, for God's sake, and (b) they all realize that politics in the real world requires compromises and incremental changes.
Show me a politician or political party who always gets what he/she wants, and I'll show you a dictatorship. Sorry, that sucks, but it's just the way the real world works.
As much as many of us -- me included -- would love to see the current corporately-controlled system torn down to it's roots and re-built, the reality is that such change will never happen overnight. If we're lucky, it will happen within my lifetime.
That means making pragmatic progress, today, one step at a time. Getting justices on the Supreme Court who value the Constitution above partisan politics. Getting bureaucrats into government who are eager to see gov't programs work, rather than loot the system for themselves and their cronies. Giving control of the public airwaves back to the public, rather than the pharmeceutical companies and SUV manufacturers.
These are all incremental but achievable changes within the next presidential administration -- but not if the Republicans maintain control.
I respect Nader greatly for all he has done and achieved in his life. At this particular juncture, though, we need to start pushing America back toward the center -- with the rule of law put back in place, and with government agencies actually doing the job they were created to do -- before we can even think about turning Joe Six-pack into a tree-hugging progressive eager to stick it to the Man.
Yeah, I'd enjoy seeing Nader as president. But it's never gonna happen in my lifetime. Therefore I'll settle for the next best thing, which is laying the groundwork that makes it possible for a Nader-like candidate to become president within my children's lifetimes. It couldn't happen today, but it could happen tomorrow.
Permalink
hikerreese Posted 4:49 pm
26 Feb 2008
Would I support a ban on campaign contributions? yes.
Would I support runoff elections?
yes.
Do I think a vote for Nader has any value at all in the meantime.
No.
Nader isn't going to end the war because he isn't going to be elected president.
Permalink