Cobbling together a delicious and easy summer dessert 1 Posted 15 hours, 19 minutes ago
Justin Timberlake brings sexy back to green, and more 0 Posted 4 hours, 38 minutes ago
Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September 0 Posted 7 hours, 47 minutes ago
Nader is in
Nader is officially in the race -- and he is now the only big-name presidential candidate who supports a carbon tax.
On the issues page of his campaign site, Nader also declares "No to nuclear power, solar energy first." Only solar? Sounds like he hasn't thought a lot about renewable energy since the '70s.
Lisa Hymas is Grist’s senior editor.
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action
Cap & trade: Carbon tax or wealth transfer?
Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein gets climate bill wrong
Comments
View as Flat
sunflower Posted 3:42 am
24 Feb 2008
Not one word about carbon on Meet the Press
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:47 am
24 Feb 2008
Nader is a social issues candidate, duh
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:20 am
24 Feb 2008
He mentions some important issues
The issues on his websites are one-liners (shorter, really phrases), he needs some more in-depth position papers, obviously. At least he's upfront saying no to nuclear and yes to a carbon tax.
For me, the most important issue is "Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget". I think "Work to end corporate personhood" is a good one too -- but there are plenty of other progressive issues he could have mentioned (like infrastructure, green collar jobs, manufacturing)...but don't hyperventilate, he'll get about as many votes as the socialist workers party candidate.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 5:00 am
24 Feb 2008
Nader ReRun
For someone who proposes to hate a corpocracy he sure knows how to perpetuate one.
Nader, Florida, Hanging Chads, the Supreme Court. Its like Deja Vu all over again.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 5:24 am
24 Feb 2008
Nadar Radar
Just a blip right now, I sure hope when this wreck goes away the black box doesn't point to him crashing a democratic hopeful again.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
randino Posted 5:59 am
24 Feb 2008
This is a sad story.
Nader, one of the most significant agents of change in the Post World War II era, is in danger of turning himself into a buffoon - a Harold Staasen of the left. Only Dennis (who I support in his congressional race ) is more in need of getting a clue and getting some new ideas of what to do with himself in the future.
It is too bad. There are tens of thousands of people out there who have escaped death or maiming because of Nader. Too bad he can't find another role for himself in his later years.
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:07 am
24 Feb 2008
Sam Smith's comment
I often find that Sam has cut to the heart of things like this quicker and more insightfully than I could:
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
kmp Posted 7:11 am
24 Feb 2008
Why?
Why run?
When he is clearly so effective outside of government, why this continual attempt to get the top job in government? And why only President; why not Mayor, Governor, Senator?
I don't blame Nader for the loss to Bush in 2000 - I said at the time that Gore should have been able to beat Bush hands down, and a couple of percentage points to Nader were just an annoying distraction over the real problems; the electoral college, hanging chads, and an American public who votes for "likability" over policy.
In spite of my respect for Nader's career in consumer advocacy, I don't have a lot of respect for his decisions to run for President. At this point, it seems like merely pandering to his own ego (as others have said); a national soap-box from which to preach your faith. Hell, if I had millions of dollars to burn, I could run for President too, and, for a little while, people would listen to what I had to say, and some may even agree - but that doesn't mean I'd be any good at the job. And I'd have more respect for myself if I put those millions to good use (famine relief, urban renewal, protecting biodiversity, invest in renewable energy, scholarships to college....).
Permalink
nunyerbus Posted 7:32 am
24 Feb 2008
nice to see you care
Randy,
Its good to know there is a authority like you around to tell us when we are behaving inappropriately. I didn't realize the act of persistently advocating for what one believes in makes one a buffoon. Thanks for cluing me in.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:04 am
24 Feb 2008
"authority"
Nunyerbus,
it is good to know there is a [sic] authority like you around to tell us it is OK to drop the "n" of "an" before a vowel.
Kaela,
you are absolutely right: If Ralph Nader means what he says, he should have been busy preparing a legion of people to run for local and state positions, and should himself have been prepared to run for a lower office.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
ids Posted 8:17 am
24 Feb 2008
don't fall for it
Clinton won Florida when Ross Perot had 1m votes. There were 1m more voters when Nader had <.1m and Gore still lost. The Dem's designed the butterfly ballot that gave Buchanan Gore votes. Gore lost his home state TN that Clinton won twice. Gore lost West Virginia that Clinton won twice and went Dem in every Pres election but one since 1980. Any one of which gives the electoral college to Gore, in addition to the popular vote. Blaming Bush on Nader is falling for the msm grist establishment position. Nader has the freedom to speak to the issues, and that bothers some people and all Dem friends with long records of lies and wars with nukes and coal behind them.
Permalink
randino Posted 8:25 am
24 Feb 2008
You are welcome.
Glad to serve.
Randy
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 9:01 am
24 Feb 2008
Nader Ensure McCain
No not ensure a McCain victory necessarily, they are both in their 70's, one 71 and the other 74 so they probably need to drink Ensure and which one would win?
Depends, no it does not depend on a vote count, they both probably wear Depends or will have to before they are out of office.
I do not want another Predident contending with Alzheimer's the last two years of his term. Not a PC thing to say, well I guess not but you got to have somebody not from the Jurassic age with some fresher Idea's.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:50 am
24 Feb 2008
Support Nader
Support Nader to get back at the BJ haters who supported Barack just to punish the Clintons.. again. It's a whole cycle of revenge thing. Hehey.
McCain is bush-lite, it won't be that bad. Can he really invade Iran? We'll see.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:36 pm
24 Feb 2008
"Depends"! Ha!!
And did you see this quote from Conan O'Brien, in yesterday's New York Times, the Week in Review section?:
<<
The band Abba wants John McCain to stop using their songs at his campaign rallies. Yeah. When asked about it, McCain said, "Who cares about Abba? Kids today are into the Bee Gees."
>>
Ha! And I thought I was behind the times! Even I know that kids today are listening to Duran Duran and the Police.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 1:19 am
25 Feb 2008
Rebel Rock
Ain't got not Bee's, gee! I think it is because of the Hive disorder thing. Police and 38 Special except below the mason/dixon where I think "Free Bird" by Lynyrd Skynyrd is their national anthem.
Obama and Hillary both champion saving the rain forest all the sudden, I know its a good liberal cause that will open check books. Good cause period I should say.
I know its chic and in vogue but maybe someone, Nader, will point out to them we are losing thousands of acres of Appalachian deciduous forest every year also.
They treat the area like some backwater third world country so maybe if someone sent the peace corps down here and discovered us again they might could save a forest here in the good ol U.S.A.
I know its deciduous and just helps the planet breath spring though late fall but we suck up some Co2 down here. It would also be more environmentally friendly because of all the jet fuel you would save saving a forest in country.
We could learn some natives to use blow guns and put some piranha in the river to make them feel more at home.
I think they both are more flash than substance, environmental coinsciousness begins at home. I wonder if Nader knows where appalachia is?
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 2:15 am
25 Feb 2008
Nader not green
Nader has not worked for sustainability. His life's work has been making consumerism safer, arguing for fair prices and safe products while American consumers, energy hogs of the world, lead the way to biosphere meltdown.
Climate stabilization has to be our first priority. Anything we do that keeps fossil fuel supporters in power is cutting the threads of the web of life.
Nader should not run for president and pull support away form the democratic candidates with a realistic chance of winning.
Permalink
rcyoder Posted 3:27 am
25 Feb 2008
Some noise is to be expected
Nader's making his usual noise -- can anybody hear it?
Unfortunately, I don't think that it's going to do any actual good as far as getting his ideas across (which is too bad, because they are good ideas) or garnering actual votes. At this point he's become a caracature of himself and nobody takes him seriously.
People who are excited about a candidate won't vote for him, but he may get votes from folks who feel that they are otherwise given the choice of the lesser of two evils.
He won't steal my vote from either of the Democrats in the race for President.
-- Chris Yoder
Permalink
billyrainbow Posted 1:14 pm
25 Feb 2008
Nad3r 4 PreZ
A far better statement that any i can make about Ralph Nader's presidential prospects is made by the "three women holding their nekkid butts" graphic at the top of the page. It's like the bumper sticker says, "If Americans were intended to vote, then they would be given candidates." All four are heinous liars, with the one that smells the worst at any given moment more a function of which way the wind is blowing than their actual manure content, although in all fairness, it's more a choice of evil manure vs. slick manure vs. crafty manure vs. manure wearing a cure little sun bonnet done in a nice floral print. What i was wondering is, since he's out of work right now, maybe Fidel would like the job for a while. Or if he really isn't up to it, how about Hugo? Since he's not going to be president for life after all, maybe he could use a side job until Venezuela will let him go full-time. However bad he might be, he's at least proven that he isn't going to farm Exxon's manure. Seriously, whatever one might think of Fidel and Hugo, we certainly haven't been offered any better.
Permalink
chrisknipp Posted 2:12 am
26 Feb 2008
Why Nader should run (and he will anyway)
This is not a question of whether he would be a good president. It's simply important now Kucinich is out of the runniing to have a progressive point of view part of the presidential race. Corporate power is not something the mainstream candidates are going to tell us about, because as mainstream candidates they are inevitably part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Nader's "spoiler" role has been exaggerated. If Gore and Kerry lost by a few votes, that reflects the lack of difference between the two parties. We do not have to vote for him, but we do have to defend his right to run and get an independent/third party candidate heard. The American party system is locked in monolithic stagnation. Yes, Nader is stubborn and even a bit foolhardy. But that stubborn foolhardiness is at the heart of his enormous contribution to our life, our freedom, and our safety for the last fifty years.
Permalink
vermont22us Posted 5:17 am
26 Feb 2008
Are we supposed to give up?
When I see comments attacking Nader, Greens, third party politics, etc... I wonder, what we are supposed to do? Give up? What is wrong with having an independent voice in there that forces the mainstream media candidates to respond to the REAL questions? What are you all worried about?
Do you think Nader will get any coverage? We saw the media completely avoid Kucinich, Dodd, even Ron Paul. What makes you think the corporate media will give one minute of coverage to anti-corporate Nader?
If Nader does get coverage, I will be pleasantly surprised. And if that results in the Democrats losing votes, so be it. There's not much difference between Clinton, Obama or McCain anyways. Neither of them want to get out of the war. They all tout themselves as being green. We all should know what a big lie that is.
While it is true that the development of a viable third party is seemingly impossible, why do we tend to wait until the 11th hour (see: Nader) to push for a voice of the people? Howard Zinn is right, we need to start with zealous education. Election reform would be nice too.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:06 am
26 Feb 2008
Mistakes
The glaring mistakes made by Gore and Kerry were more to blame for their losses than Ralph's supporters were.
The dopey, wooden delivery of both, and the never ending pedantic overcomplication of Kerry. Those were election losers all on their own. Gore menced poor lil duuhbya in a debate, I remember noting that we could lose it with more of that kind of idiocy.
Do you think Barack would ever do that? Or use a line like Hillary's xeroxed "xerox" line. Clearly some aid wrote it and Hillary spoke it. Yikes. A clearly hypocritical attack on his "plagirism". And then ending with the Bill C, Edwards, and more platitude line.
And bill comparing barack's perfprmance in South Carolina to jesse's? Then Hillary touting LBJ, with some insane juxtaposition analogy between her and Barack? The "little more room in the bunghole area" presdient. Yech!
And not explaining her healthcvare plan or modifying it so that the impression of poor people hounded for insurance premiums by the government is dispelled?
Mistakes. Easily spotted and avoided by people like Barack. And Bill C., until the BJ inmcident.
And where were democratic party lawyers in Ohio in '04?
Don't blame Nader or his supporters for this incredible incompetence.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
elcomputo Posted 4:48 am
29 Feb 2008
Nader running again
I see nothing wrong with Nader running for President again. It's anybody's right to run (where does he get the money for this, though?), and he's dead on correct on just about every issue.
But being right doesn't automatically equate to running for President. First, it makes you a latter day don Quixote, tilting at corporate windmills. Are the corporations going to stand by while their arch-enemy runs for high office?
Second, should Nader somehow win and somehow curb the power of corporations, is that going to cure the ills of the world? Some, but there are as many real and potential problems as there are people on this planet.
Third, should the impossible happen and Nader gets elected, how does he expect to get his bills to go through Congress with no party support behind him? There is no Nader Party, and the Green Party is just about as irrelevant in national politics as Nader has become.
Nader is the Mr. Spock of politics. He thinks everything should be logical, and it's logical to be your brother's keeper because that's invariably a win-win proposition. But it isn't always, and anyway, logic plays far less of a role in everyday life than guys like Nader would like to think.
Ralph, we love you, you do great things, you're a good guy, but you're just not a man beloved by the electorate. You're good enough, you're smart enough, and, doggone it, a lot of people do love you. But, in a land where smarminess is important in a politician and most voters are suckers when it comes to believing accomplished liars in high office, you will never be a politician and you will never be elected to high office. What is even worse is that you will never get a soap box by running. After all, who owns the media? The corporations. In terms of media coverage, look what has happened to you in the past and look what happened to John Edwards just recently. The corporate media will pay little or no attention to candidates attacking them and their brethren.
Permalink