[UPDATE: Yep, Nader is officially in.]
Ralph Nader is set to appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday (as David noted), and that has tongues wagging. Might he use the occasion to announce that he's jumping into the presidential race?
As you already know, he ran in 2000, garnering 2.74 percent of the popular vote as the Green Party nominee. As you might not know, he also ran in 2004, then getting only 0.38 percent of the vote.
This year, Nader's already got an exploratory committee and corresponding website, sprinkled with good old-fashioned corporate bashing and establishment whacking:
Maybe the Democrats and Republicans will nominate presidential candidates this year who will stand up against the war profiteers, the nuclear industry, the credit card industry, the corporate criminals, big oil, and the drug and health insurance industries.
We doubt it.
"The Nader Team" sent an email message to supporters today announcing the "Meet the Press" appearance, which read in part:
As you know, we've been exploring the possibilities in recent weeks.
And here's one question that keeps coming up:
What's been pulled off the table by the corporatized political machines in this momentous election year?
Answer: Cutting the huge, bloated and wasteful military budget, adopting a single payer Canadian-style national health insurance system, impeaching Bush/Cheney, opposing nuclear power -- among many others.
The environment has never been an animating passion for Nader (beyond his long-time anti-nuke stance), but his anti-corporate zealousness dovetails with many environmentalists' views.
What do you think: Should Ralph run?
Sorry, the poll you are seeking no longer exists. If you’re in a voting mood, suggest a poll and you might just see it on the site.
Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action
Los Angeles rejects solar plan, still likes solar power
Comments View as Flat
Charles Barton Posted 10:11 am
22 Feb 2008
Ralph Nader run?
Ralph Nader run? How can he run? The only thing Nader can do is slide on on his belly. That is what he did in 2000, and 2004. Ralph can't help it. He was born a snake.
Charles Barton
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:26 am
22 Feb 2008
No
Ralph cares more about posturing than results.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 11:02 am
22 Feb 2008
Need an overall strategy
I'm much more in accord with Nader's values than with the current crop of Democrats.
However, I think that his running again is a mistake, and that most effort spent on Presidential politics is a waste of energy right now.
The U.S. political situation is a difficult one, and one needs a long-range strategy to make any headway:
- Where does one want to go?
- What are the balance of forces?
- What options are available, and which are the most promising?
To me, the hot areas involve building networks and communities: food security, re-localization, mutual support in times of trouble.The Internet is an unprecedented tool, allowing motivated groups to bypass the mainstream media. It's possible to have virtual think tanks, as here at Gristmill. There are more opportunities now than I've seen in 30 years.
So why bother with Nader for president, either pro or con? Just vote Democrat and get on with more important things.
In the meantime, work with anyone who shares your position on specific issues.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
greenguy12312005 Posted 11:24 am
22 Feb 2008
WE NEED RALPH!
How can we keep supporting Democrats when they do not support us, the people, but rather the corporations that rape our environment and our pockets?
As long as Democrats keep accepting donations from Corporate entities, the politicians are not going stand up for you or me. Everyone needs to wake up on this issue! We need a third party to rise up and stand up for us!
Let me ask this question to illustrate the point on how little today's politicians represent us. Who was the last President to make significant effort to support for a war on poverty, establish a national healthcare system, established the Environmental Protection Agency and supported consumer rights? Richard Nixon! This is a far drop from todays values of politicians, either Republican or Democrats isn't it?
Ralph Nader is the best thing to happen to America! He has fought for the little man all of his life. PLEASE, RUN RALPH RUN!!!!!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 11:39 am
22 Feb 2008
Wow
The years change. The world changes. But the boilerplate rhetoric of Nader supporters never changes.
grist.org
Permalink
greenguy12312005 Posted 11:45 am
22 Feb 2008
Wow
The truth doesn't change. Unfortunately, nor does the amount of people who keep their head in the sand.
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 11:46 am
22 Feb 2008
Please. Make it stop.
Hey greenguy wanting Ralph to run, are you prepared for this:
"I, John McCain, do solemnly swear..."
Honestly, what is wrong with you people?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:48 am
22 Feb 2008
Nader
I voted for Nader in 2000 (in California a safe Gore state, so centrists Democrats, don't get your knickers all twisted!!!).
At the time he was running as the nominee of the Green Party. He never (in my opinion) did much to help build the party, it was always about him.
By 2004, my choices were voting for a bad Democrat or a true Green (not NADER!!). I voted for Kerry (very reluctantly, but in VA, where it might have mattered).
This year I will vote with reluctance for...
I honestly dunno yet, though I am leaning towards Obama (the Democratic nominee) who is another centrist Democrat. But I don't have any false hopes.
Dear GreenGuy12312005,
If you want to build a third party stay as far away from Nader as you can. He has not interest in doing so, he is only about his ego. And frankly, on social issues, he ain't even that progressive. Your criticisms of the two major parties are correct.
I agree with Bart on this one.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
greenguy12312005 Posted 12:02 pm
22 Feb 2008
More choices, the better
Good post, Patrick.
I am just looking for some choices here as well. Why is it that people are so opposed to additional choices for president? Surely, with all of the complex issues surrounding this country, our choices should not be one or the other?
Unfortunately, the Democrats are posturing against democracy by trying to keep additional choices off the menu. I don't want steak or chicken. I want lasagna.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:28 pm
22 Feb 2008
Greenguy
If another Republican gets elected, would that be good for America?
Permalink
slothman Posted 12:51 pm
22 Feb 2008
He's a deliberate spoiler
Nader's closest adviser: "Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them."
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 12:53 pm
22 Feb 2008
For better or for worse
We have a two-party system. If you want to build a third party, start at the grassroots level.
A third-party candidate for president will always be a spoiler. That's the way the system is set up. You can't change it in one fell swoop from the top. Money, entrenched power, and entrenched organization will prevent that from happening.
I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Much more effective: rebuild the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. It's happening in many places as we speak.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:09 pm
22 Feb 2008
hee hee hee
It doesn't matter what Ralph decides to do. Ms. Clinton will be defeating Mr. McCain by a very large margin. And no one will be paying attention to Ralph Nader.
He's a bit arrogant, but seems like a nice guy overall. Gore should have been able to defeat George Bush regardless, so I can't blame Nader for the results of the 2000 election.
However, I'd take him a whole lot more seriously -- well, I'd take him seriously -- if he would pick a party and stick with it. I mean, really, what's with running as the Green Party candidate, but not joining the Green Party?! And what's with running as a Green during one election, but not running as a Green now? Why didn't he participate in the Green Party primary this year? Why run as an independent? Why wait to see what the Democrats have to offer? Does he want to build a real and functional third party? Or will he only be happy if he builds a Nader Party and gets to be their candidate -- not bothering with a primary -- every four years? What does Ralph Nader want? Right now it looks like he just wants to help Republicans maintain control of the U.S. Presidency.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:16 pm
22 Feb 2008
Obama
Assuming Mr. Obama is the candidate in November -- which Nader will not know before announcing that he will run as an independent -- why does Nader hate Obama so much? I can see why he would spoil Ms. Clinton's chance to become President, but why would he want to spoil Mr. Obama's chance? Is he trying to blackmail the Democrats, hoping to get a cabinet position in exchange for not running for President? He really seems almost as slimy as the corporations he dislikes so much.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 2:59 pm
22 Feb 2008
So what?
Folks seem to forget that every presidential election a handful of people get on the ballot who are pretty much ignored by all but the fringes. So Nader decides to run -- big deal.
I have a great deal of respect for Nader dedicating his life to various activist causes, but he's been notably unsuccessful as an electoral candidate. If he chooses to run he will inevitably siphon off some votes. However, I suspect that he will have even less of an impact this time than in 2004. Even if the election is as close as it was in 2000, he won't gain enough votes in swing states to make much of a difference . . . unless.
Unless we create a tempest in a teapot. Nader's best strategy is to rekindle the "should he run?" debate. Why play? Of course he has the right to run. Democratic Party officials should do absolutely nothing (unlike in 2004) to get in his way, e.g., by obstructing his getting on the ballot or by attacking him in the press. Just ignore him.
If the future is like the past, some Republican operatives will see advantage in pumping up a left-leaning third party candidacy. So I hope that muckraking journalists such as Talking Points Memo will keep an eye on the money trail and blogospheric trolls.
That said, I don't see why we need to stir up a whole bunch of drama about this. Nader has a right to freedom of expression and association. The Democratic nominee, for better or worse, will be fairly moderate on most issues. Nevertheless, the Republicans simply cannot be allowed to win again.
Those who don't buy into that paradigm will vote for a third-party candidate regardless of what you or I say. And that's fine. Why can't we all respect each other for our differences and go about our business? After all, the election won't be won or lost by a handful of lefties -- it will be with the moderate middle. That's where Rove and Co. will be focusing. Keep your eye on the prize, folks!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:13 pm
22 Feb 2008
Teddy Roosevelt
Remember how TR turned on the GOP? McCain could do that. Turn against the corporate power behind the neocons. Who use the evangelicals, just as they use US soldiers for their private oil war in Iraq.
So if you Nader boosters want to go for it, no problem.
The neocorporats would rather see Barack or Hillary president than have that happen. Their mouthpieces keep saying that. The vomiting talking heads on their media outlets.
Throw the election to McCain. If you can. Barack will be hard to beat even without the Nader faction. Punish democrats for the BJ once again. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
el mono Posted 3:49 pm
22 Feb 2008
winner take all
In America's winner take all system, I contend that it is close to impossible for a viable third party to emerge.
If Ralph runs, we could potentially lose Obama as our pres (LCV score in the 80s, I believe) and end up with McCain (LCV score of 0). I hope Nader supporters put this in perspective. Would we have been better off with Gore as president instead of Bush in 2000? I rest my case.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 1:21 am
23 Feb 2008
Not the Spoiler he used to be:
He is irrelevant, should not muddy up the waters at this time. He always splits up the democratic vote. Would not be as much of a factor this time but don't want even the slightest chance of a Republican victory this time.
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 1:21 am
23 Feb 2008
I was a Nader supporter
in 2000. Yes, I know. I take personal responsibility for the Iraq War, the trashing of the constitution, the trashing of the climate and all other sins and crimes since January 2001. Mea culpa.
Now that we have that covered, let me say that Nader running for President redefines absurdity. I am behind Obama, not because he will raise the dead or initiative the millenium of perfect justice and peace. I am behind him because (1) His victory in the nomination process will finally drive a stake in the heart of Team Clinton. (2) That I think he will give us the best opportunities to make progress on a whole range of policies. The burden - however - is on us. As FDR once said to a delegation of people who were lobbying him, "I agree with you. Now go out there and make me agree with you." That will be our - not Obama's - job should he win the election against the hell spawned forces of McCain.
I will be a loyal supporter of Obama until January 20, 2009. Then we will see what we will see. We environmentalists need to become much more cynical and hard nosed about our political decisions. Quit acting like babies.
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
pri45 Posted 2:08 am
23 Feb 2008
Nader's contribution
Before commenting about Ralph Nader's ego, or his snake-like qualities, read about all the consumer safety and environmental policies he has single-handedly given our country. Or if you'd rather, check out his documentary, An Unreasonable Man.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." ~George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman" 1903
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 3:33 am
23 Feb 2008
Just for fun
I'd like to see another Grist poll: Nader or McKinney?
Permalink
pbumpers Posted 3:55 am
23 Feb 2008
Nader, No
if nader runs, he wont get enough and just steal votes from Obama.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 6:03 am
23 Feb 2008
Oh crap, not again
Nader should run when, and only when, we adopt instant-runoff voting in this country, or some similar mechanism that ensures that dilettantes like him don't become spoiler candidates.
I respect all that Ralph has done over the years, but -- oh God, please -- don't run in '08, Ralph. Go agitate, go rake mud, go try to build up the Green Party, go try to get states to adopt instant-runoff voting, go ask hard questions of the Powers that Be ... but don't run.
Please.
Permalink
Tim McKee Posted 8:00 am
23 Feb 2008
The environment has never been an animating passio
This is PURE garbage!! Do you know your history?
in the 60's Clean Water act, Air .ect.ect!!!
Nader lead efforts for the First Earth day with many others..
Democrats Clinton and Gore pushed Nafta, GATT and other environement disasters..
Obam is pro Nuclear power!!
Greens are looking for 5% for matching FUTURE races. 5% is a win for Greens.
It NOT about Nader..it about a GREEN Party!
Permalink
johnmcc793 Posted 8:42 am
23 Feb 2008
Ralph, don't run. JUMP
Ralph Nader is the reason hundreds of thousands of people have died or been seriously injured in Iraq.
He said during his messianic campaign that he saw no difference between the Democrat Gore or Republican Bush candidates. The rampant fool will never pay for what he was instrumental in causing.
John McCormick
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 9:30 am
23 Feb 2008
Only with the so-called American Left
is running for President considered a sin.
Message (1) to Nader-obsessives: Nader will not "steal votes" from Obama/ Clinton. Nobody is obliged to vote for Nader, and neither Obama nor Clinton are entitled to anyone's votes. The ideas that people are obliged to vote for Nader if he runs, and that Democratic Party Presidential candidates are entitled to votes are, then, urban legends.
Message (2) to Nader-obsessives: Back in 2000, Nader wanted to "hurt the Democrats" because the Democrats were running on a neoliberal party line. Neoliberalism is the party line of that fraction of capital that would rather see Earth's ecosystems fatally compromised than experience a slight dip in the profit rate. If you support neoliberal politicians, you support neoliberalism. This is what made, and makes, Nader angry. It should make you angry, too, if you care about the future of Planet Earth.
Message (3) to Nader-obsessives: Your argument that Nader-voters would vote for the Democrat if Nader weren't running is countered by Nader's argument that a lot more people are pulled into American democracy by his candidacy than would otherwise participate. There's no way of proving who's right between these two positions. There is, then, no proof that Nader-voters would vote for the Democrat if they were deprived of voter choice.
Message (4) to Nader-obsessives: Saying that Nader is "slimy" or "arrogant" or any other playground names is missing the point. Voting does not serve you if you cannot vote for whomever is the best candidate, and the best candidate is not the least "slimy" or "arrogant" candidate but, rather, the candidate (and his/her appointed team) who will give us the best policies. Seriously: if you are electing people to the White House so they can be "un-slimy" or "humble," it says more about you than it says anything about Nader. Did you think you were electing someone to the post of "saint"?
Message (5) to Nader-obsessives: Waiting for instant runoff voting before voting for the best candidate means you will never vote for the best candidate. You will only wait.
Message (6) to Nader-obsessives: A demand that the Green Party only field candidates for local offices is a demand that the Green Party give up on the publicity that a Presidential candidate brings, which will probably be the difference between ballot status and no ballot status in dozens of states. Basically you are demanding that the Green Party die so that the public can be deprived of the Green Party as a voter choice. Is this a realistic demand?
Message (7) to Nader-obsessives: Claiming that "Nader won't win" falls under the argumentative fallacy of "self-fulfilling prophesy." Nader would win if enough people were to vote for Nader, and no second-guessing of the election outcome can eliminate this possibility.
Message (8) to Nader-obsessives: Insisting that your candidate have "political experience" of the kind Nader doesn't have is a misjudging of the task of being President. Eight years of the George W. Bush Preaidency and eight years of the Ronald W. Reagan Presidency should have taught you that any fool can be President. What matters about a Nader candidacy are two things: 1) what kind of policy would we see from a Nader Presidency, and 2) what kind of political team can we expect Ralph Nader to appoint were he to be elected President?
Message (9) to Nader-obsessives: supporting a reactionary Democrat against a reactionary Republican does not make you a "liberal." It makes you a reactionary. Claims that "I will support the right-wing Democrat until he/she is inaugurated, and then re-join the Left thereafter" are fatuous, as people who argue thusly will not stop employing "lesser of two evils" rationales just because a Democrat is inaugurated into the White House.
For some people, this is the scariest thing about having a reactionary Democrat in the White House. At least with a Republican in the White House there is a good chance that the Democrats will stay pissed off, and might even continue to agitate for social change. With a Democrat in the White House, we might imagine, Democrats will trust that their politicians will "do the right thing" regardless of what good or bad things they do. This is, of course, hypothetical reasoning; realities may differ.
That having been said, American political realities look pretty grim. The room for maneuver in Presidential elections is rather low; this reality is made worse by the Electoral College, which narrows the range of meaningful "critical votes" to those which are cast in "swing states." It might be possible that a Barack Obama Presidency could produce good things, although this is dependent upon whether Obama can be made to diverge from the neoliberal "Washington Consensus" in important ways. (It is easy to expect a Clinton or McCain Presidency to be more neoliberalism.) America's place on the learning curve is in serious need of improvement. What is needed, far more than any Presidential candidate, and far more than any form of cheerleading for any particular candidate, is political education.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 9:37 am
23 Feb 2008
In case it wasn't clear the first time --
Message (10) to Nader-obsessives: Nader is not responsible for Bush's "election." Bush was "elected" by the Supreme Court in 2000 with the blessings of Katherine Harris (who was rewarded for her deed with a seat on the Council on Foreign Relations), and Bush was "elected" by Ohio's hacked Diebold voting machines in 2004 with the blessings of Ken Blackwell. Nader is also not responsible for Democratic Party complicity in 1) refusing to investigate or protest the 2000 Florida vote recount, or 2) pass Bush's initiatives in Congress. Therefore, Nader is not responsible for Bush's misdeeds.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:31 am
23 Feb 2008
Sam,
Someone who writes 2000+ word blog comments is in an odd position to call others "obsessives."
grist.org
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 10:46 am
23 Feb 2008
Dude, Where's My Corvair?
Ralph Nader ruined the best car that America ever made...the Corvair. A mid-engine dream car that the middle class person could afford. The only thing wrong with it was they used a $5 sway bar instead of a $20 one...could have been easily fixed if old Ralph hadn't blasted away in his book.
Ernie Kovaks had a Corvair station wagon...and he was a smart guy! I think Bob Lutz should cold cock Nader if they ever meet on the street.
http://www.buyoldcars.com/images/1962_chevy_corvair/62_Ch ...
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 10:48 am
23 Feb 2008
My recurring concern
My recurring concern is with the debasement of the political process. American political argument is generally banal, and it's high time we encouraged people to move up the learning curve rather than just spitting out little quips like this one.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
kjmiller Posted 11:34 am
23 Feb 2008
Shame on you.
My only voting regret... Was not voting for Nader in 2004. I held my nose and voted for Kerry. The idea behind Democracy is that you vote for someone who represents your interests and priorities. The presidential candidate, in my lifetime, who has come closest to this is Nader. Voting for him in 1996 and 2000 was my RIGHT as an American. Anyone of you who says that he should stay out of the race so that MY vote isn't "stolen" by Nader can go to hell. Who are you to say that some platitude-spouting corporate-lackey "deserves" my vote? I absolutely resent that. Absolutely.
If I have the anti-Nader argument right, it is: "Ralph Nader shouldn't run, because people that think he represents them will vote for him. The consequence is that the greater of two evils will get elected."
I have this to say in reply: Who the hell are you to suppress who I get to vote for? YOU HAVE NO RIGHT. My vote is mine, and it is my voice in a Democracy (or at least whatever is left of the one that used to be here).
And before you get on your "pragmatist" high horse, think about this - if you always go for the lesser of 2 evils, you still get more evil, just a little more slowly. If you vote for what you think is good, then you may lose most of the time - but your voice, and your values are recognized. When that odd time when your views pull through, you've done a small good, rather than perpetuated a lesser evil.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:03 pm
23 Feb 2008
Lets put it simply
FACT: If Nader runs, he will not be elected in the general election.
FACT: If Nader runs, the democratic candidate will get less votes.
Now if you think either of these two statements are wrong, then you aren't being rational.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:09 pm
23 Feb 2008
Another thing to consider
If Nader does run, and the Democrats lose again to a slim margin.
Then the Green Party will actually lose even more of what little popular support it currently has.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 1:08 pm
23 Feb 2008
Let's put it simply
This is a prediction. Predictions are not facts.
This is a prediction, too, and an incomplete one at that. Less votes than what?
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 1:11 pm
23 Feb 2008
Quite unlikely
This "thing to consider" runs contrary to past empirical observation. The Green Party lost support in 2004 when Nader did not run as a Green, and gained support in 2000 when he did. The identity of the election "winner" had nothing to do with the levbel of support for the Green Party.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 1:30 am
24 Feb 2008
Remembering Florida
He is directly responsible for 8 destructive years of George Bush. Al Gore would have been predident if Nader's 97,000 votes had not been pulled from the democrats. Yes, Jeb and other election officers helped george steal it plus an illegal supreme court decision. We would not have been counting hanging chads if Nader had not ruined florida for Al Gore.
He is an intelligent person, great Ideas but at this point he is just a spoiler. If he had got in early and run as a Democrat, join em and then change em, I would have took him more serious.
I would vote for him in New York minute if I seriously thought he had a chance but to thwart McCain and his 100's years war he should stay out.
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
nunyerbus Posted 1:37 am
24 Feb 2008
Nothing at stake
If there is a fear that Ralph will "siphon democratic votes"
Environment:
The handy Grist comparison of candidates shows little difference on the environmental platforms of Clinton, McCain and Obama. In any case, they will be signing or vetoing legislation from congress, not drafting the bills.
Other issues:
Healthcare. There is no candidate advocating single-payer. This area will not change meaningfully.
Foreign Policy:
Some differences about when to get troops out of Iraq. But no one has put forward significant proposals on changing policies overall. (ie support for Israel, Saudi Arabia, South America policy etc.)
Trade:
No one is bailing out on WTO, NAFTA, etc.
Military Spending:
We spend more than the rest of the world combined. We buy $300mm jet fighters to fight.... umm, the martians maybe? No one is out to slash this corporate welfare program.
A vote for Ralph at least acknowledges that there is a key root cause common to many of the issues above. A vote for any of the other 3 just doesn't mean too much.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:37 am
24 Feb 2008
New reason to support Ralph
Both lobbyist run parties support fuel farming, clean coal, and nuclear power.
McCain won't be another shaved chimp, he might start a war with Iran though.
Maybe the democratic party would finally get the green message with four more years of GOPeeing? Trickling on us with tax breaks for the rich and subsidies for corporations to outsource jobs?
Risk another war, plus the Afghanistan and Iraq disasters cont9inuing for 100 years? Why not? Global climate change is more serious and neither party is going to do much about it, except make it worse with nukes, fuel farms, and lots more "clean" coal. And lots of carbon trading for hedge funds to get richer on.
Revive the green party! Run Ralph run. Green is dead in the water right now.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 2:12 am
24 Feb 2008
Already covered
We are in the "entitlement" theory of voting here once again. See message #1 above.
Besides, Gore won the Florida vote. The Nader-obsessives, though, think Ralph is to be blamed for a bad Supreme Court decision, a rigged Florida vote-counting apparatus, and their own failure to protest the outcome.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:18 am
24 Feb 2008
Ralph and Green Party
As someone who supported the Green Party in the past and who might consider supporting them in the future, I'm very curious about a small matter.
Why didn't Ralph Nader participate in the Green Party primary/caucus? There are only two parties in position to actually build a competitive third party, the Greens and the Libertarians. Ralph said we need a viable third party to take on the corporations. Wouldn't that be the Green Party?
By running as an independent, totally bypassing the primary/caucus process, Ralph not only MIGHT serve as a spoiler and take votes away from the Democratic candidate, he WILL serve as a spoiler and take votes away from a growing Green Party.
Why does Ralph Nader despise the Green Party? Why doesn't he join the Green Party and remain there long enough to create a strong third party? Running as an independent only weakens all potential third parties.
Can someone please explain Ralph Nader's reasons for not participating in the Green Party primary/caucus?
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:21 am
24 Feb 2008
Debate is over
he's running.
Dammit.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 2:32 am
24 Feb 2008
Go get 'em LegumeSam
Sam: it's not easy trying to tell the truth about Nader's non-role in the outcomes of the 2000 and 2004 elections. People just don't want to hear it. Especially Democrats.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:50 am
24 Feb 2008
A vote for
A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.
Simple as that.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 3:02 am
24 Feb 2008
Lucy and her football
If you dig below the snark you will find two different political strategies. Both have been present in American politics for more than a century -- and they are unlikely to go away regardless of what happens with an election or two.
With that in mind, what exactly do commenters expect to accomplish by beating up on each other? Okay, so snarkiness can be fun (in a mean-spirited, Jerry Springer kind of way), but what's the desired outcome?
As a case in point, does GreyFlcn think that by insulting those who are pro-Nader that he is going to win them over? Or would he prefer to piss them off so much that they attack Obama as much as McCain?
This thread is exactly what Republicans want to see -- a food fight between the Naderites and Obamaites. How is it that highly intelligent and environmentally committed folks could fall for such a banal trick? It's like Lucy offering the football once again to Charlie Brown.
Political Suicide 101.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:45 am
24 Feb 2008
Actually
I voted for Edwards.
The trick being I don't really care who gets elected, just so long as it's not a Republican.
However we can save the fiddling for the Primaries.
When we get to the General Election, it's for Keeps.
It's a bit like someone going to Vegas, and betting their entire life savings at the Roulette Wheel where only 1 slot gives them a win.
It could happen. Sure. But if you lose, the result will be devastating.
And frankly, we don't have time to fiddle while the world burns.
__
That said, what type of intelligent argument am I supposed to have?
Do I disagree with Nader's positions? No.
What I disagree with is the high-stakes long-shot gamble that makes it far easier for a Republican to win office.
__
I guess one argument you could make
China and India haven't quite fully developed their infrastructure. They could instead "leap-frog" to cheaper and cleaner infrastructure, if we could show them the way.
A whole new generation of new coal and nuclear power plants are on the brink of being built (Or not)
We are at a unique time and place where what we do in the next 4 years will set the stage for the next 30 years.
And if a Republican gets in office, all of that would be a gigantically missed opportunity for dealing with climate change.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 4:20 am
24 Feb 2008
Snoopy Fly's above the Fray
I will say at the onset Nader is the only one I ever listened to who has the true concept of the destructiveness of a government controlled by corporations. He was my hope and inspiration in times past. I was really disappionted when John Edwards could not find any traction with this message.
The fact is the corporate lobby is so entrenched in government as to be likened to a cancer that has spread to all the major organs and the lymphatic system. The patient is in stage four and the prognosis is terminal.
If Nader is going to be part of the recovery, if any form of Nadar chemo or radiation is still viable at this time, he should endorse and continue pushing his agenda,"that I feel is the correct one".
The general public does not understand the destructive nature of a corpocracy nor how close this one has drove us to the edge of collapse. If he could get the talking heads talking about it for a few months it would do no harm. However if an when it becomes apparant that he is not going to get even 10% of the popular vote he should get off the ticket and whoever he endorses should make a place for his message in His/Her platform.
I can only hope John Edwards endorces soon!
The best oncologist does the patient no good in a hospice situation. I fear we won't survive another four years in a corpocracy. Jefferson warned of it and as late as 61 Ike warned of the Industrial Military Complex.
The staffs of the three leading Predidental hopefuls only highlights the seriousness of the situation. I only hope that Obama is serous in his rhetoric to rid government of the corporate lobby. If John Edwards endorse's him it may lend a little credence to his promise.
I fear that to Nader it is not about the cause anymore but about ego and the man. His message is golden his intent is suspect at this point. He would have to know he has no serious chance to win and his effort will weaken the third party concept that I also adhere to.
It will be his choice to be part of the solution or part of the problem. If he puts his political aspirations above the cause this time he will have earned his reputation as a spoiler and of running just for the sake of running.
If he gets in for the express purpose of obtaining a megaphone educating the public on the dangers of a corpocracy he has a legitimate place at the table, if he knows when to endorse and step aside.
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
LegumeSam Posted 4:56 am
24 Feb 2008
Nader and the Greens
Nader was on the ballot in my state, California.
Nader's relationship to the Green Party isn't clear. One thing to consider, though, is that the popular vote isn't binding on Green delegates, and so Green primaries are basically beauty contests. Most of the GPUS, after all, is a Potemkin village. The Green Party only has a meaningful constituency in four states: California, Illinois, New Mexico, and New York. If the Green Party is to pretend to be a national party, then, it must throw up Potemkin village "Green Parties" in the other 46 states.
Getting the Green nomination, then, means winning the acclaim of the gatekeepers at the convention, which will (this year) take place this June in Chicago. How meaningful is a Green Party with gatekeepers?
One of the main problems with a concept like the Green Party is that it seems to be asking the public to accept the Ten Key Values, and the platforms based upon them, as a precondition for voting Green. This makes it look as if the Green Party is rejecting everyone who isn't (yet) on board with the Ten Key Values; i.e. they look like a party of purists.
As for Nader's situation, I don't know. Maybe he's fulfilling a promise to his deceased dad that he'd never join a political party.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 4:58 am
24 Feb 2008
This is getting silly.
Message (11) to Nader-obsessives: The vote-counters do not add Nader's totals to the Republican candidate's totals.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 5:03 am
24 Feb 2008
The foundational urban legend
I think the Nader urban legends are based on one, foundational urban legend, which goes like this: The Republicans are evil neoconservatives and the Democrats are good liberals. The truth of the matter is more like this: Both Republican and Democrat elites are neoliberals, and if there is any difference between them, it's that the elites must appear to take different positions on the issues in order to appear to cater to different rank-and-file constituencies.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:06 am
24 Feb 2008
Disappontment with Ralph
Ralph's a great crusader, but piss-poor at politics. He's managed to alienate vast swathes of the liberal-left who otherwise share his views.
The building blocks of politics are parties, organizations and alliances. These he ignores.
I keep waiting for some sort of strategy or plan. Instead we get "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it any more." Such an approach may feel good, but it is no way to approach social change.
Historically we have models like the Fabian Society in Britain, the Communist Party (PCI) in Italy (1930s-70s), the New Deal in the US (1930s-70s), the conservative movement in the US (1970s-present).
Instead of thinking long-term, the candidacy of Nader forces us to talk about him individually ... again. What a waste.
Howard Zinn has a good post today on Election Madness:
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:40 am
24 Feb 2008
Quibbling
But it does subtract from Democratic candidate's totals. Which is essentially the same thing.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/ ...
Permalink
Jaime Posted 7:41 am
24 Feb 2008
Raise Hell
Whenever the subject of Ralph Nader comes up I am instantly reminded of Molly Ivins and her slogan"Raise Hell!" The fact that Ralph causes so much consternation left and right is really gratifying to me. He's doing what all of these self-professed intellectuals should be doing. Agitating. Consistently. And putting his money where his mouth is. I heard someone accuse Obama recently of being "too eloquent". I have a gut feeling that is something a lot of folks really have in mind when they listen to Nader.
Funny. The quote from Howard Zinn (.."our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools.") and one from Molly Ivins (..""We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. Every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action..") dovetail very nicely and describe what Nader has been working at for a tremendously long time.
One Earth, One People
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:44 am
24 Feb 2008
Ralph Nader and Green Party
LegumeSam wrote...
"One of the main problems with a concept like the Green Party is that it seems to be asking the public to accept the Ten Key Values, and the platforms based upon them, as a precondition for voting Green. This makes it look as if the Green Party is rejecting everyone who isn't (yet) on board with the Ten Key Values; i.e. they look like a party of purists."
Well, Ralph Nader seems to be asking us to reject every candidate who does not agree with 100% of his values. He did not try very hard to become the Green Party nominee. Thus, he comes across as some sort of purist... follow me, Ralph Nader, or I'm going to do what I can to ensure four more years of destructive Republican rule and teach you folks a harsh lesson.
If Ralph Nader was on the Green Party primary ballot in some states, then democracy has run it course and he should accept the results of the Green Party primary. If he wasn't interested in accepting the results, he should stop misleading people and not pretend to be a supporter of the Green Party.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:53 am
24 Feb 2008
Democracy
Regarding those who remind us that Ralph Nader has a right to run for President and we should not try to stop him...
Of course he has a right to run for President! Every American citizen born in the U.S. and over ... whatever age is specified in the Constitution... has a right to run for President!
And everyone else has a right to voice their opinion regrading whether it is a good idea, a wise idea, for the greater good, et cetera. Once someone throws his hat into the eleciton ring, he and his supporters should not be surprised or upset that the decision and motives to run for office and the candidates platform will be discussed.
I doubt anyone disputes Ralph Nader's right to run for office. But they are certainly questioning, and allowed to question, the wisdom of that decision.
Simple question:
Which candidate -- of Clinton, Obama, Gravel, Nader, McCain, Huckabee, and the numerous others not talked about -- are most likely to get elected via the current system AND represent your values?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:01 am
24 Feb 2008
Ralph Nader's role
Given Ralph Nader's important contributions to protecting consumers, protecting children, and reducing corporate control over the political process, it would have been nice if he would have allied himself with Clinton or Obama and found an influential role in the new Democratic administration, rather than throw a wrench in the current election process.
Sorry, but... he doesn't really appear to play well with others. As a result, he will find himself shunned and villified rather that, say, head of the EPA or some other important Federal agency. Imagine Ralph Nader as Attorney General? That's all one can and ever will do... imagine it.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 8:17 am
24 Feb 2008
Nader Ethics
I could see him on the ethics committee, lobbying to get the corporations out of government.
Did I say lobbying, must have been a Frueudian slip.
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
LegumeSam Posted 8:28 am
24 Feb 2008
More Nader-obsession
The vote-tabulators are also not subtracting Nader's vote totals from the Democrat vote totals. Are there any more falsehoods on this matter I've forgotten to counter here?
Oh yeah, and then there's the "scandal" of Nader receiving money from his old Republican buddies from Princeton. From Kevin Zeese on Democracy Now:
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 8:39 am
24 Feb 2008
How can I communicate successfully with you?
From wiscidea:
What evidence supports this assertion?
And what's wrong with running against the neoliberal status quo?
Since (as I said above) the Green Party is only a viable entity in four states, and since getting the Green Party's nomination is a matter of pleasing a self-selected cadre of gatekeepers, I fail to see why "trying very hard to become the Green Party nominee" would be a reason to vote for Nader, or for that matter for any particular candidate. Is there something special about, say, Phil Huckelberry or, maybe, Jody Haug, that we should trust their judgment about who would or wouldn't make a good President?
I can, on the other hand, imagine the frustration of Green Party loyalists who might wish that Nader would actually put some effort into building up the Green Party rather than in running as an independent. America could use a good third party; it is, however, up to that third party to show the public that it is a deserving alternative to the two-party system.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 8:45 am
24 Feb 2008
For a better movement structure
Yeah, a strategy or plan would be nice. Wouldn't it?
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
mzungumasai Posted 9:00 am
24 Feb 2008
Democratize the Democratic Party
People often argue that our country has a two party system. While this is true, I believe it is really a fine thing. The problem lies in those parties themselves. Our two parties should be coalition parties. While to some degree they are coalition parties, both the republican and democratic parties are undemocratic. The primary is our opportunity to support any candidate we want. If a liberal candidate can't win the democratic primary how can we expect them to win in the national contest? Winning is not first and foremost, our values are. But if we can create a just primary system and greater democracy within our democratic party, then we will be giving Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and anyone else a just opportunity. We can work together as liberals to pick a candidate and support them in the national campaign. The future justice of American politics lies in making the democratic party more democratic. If we truly had a democratic democratic party any third party ralph naders would just be sore losers who couldn't handle the big time and felt as if they were still doing something. Its time to move beyond egos, winners and losers, and to make a democratic democratic party. That is what I will be working on. No more superdelegates, everyone's vote equaling one vote, money restrictions, balanced media offerings, a democratic party democracy committee, a democratic party fact verification and anti-slander committee, and a candidate chosen from the votes not a convention. Positive change takes many forms, but as we all work for that change my political efforts will be focused on increasing democracy within the democratic party.
Permalink
kjmiller Posted 10:08 am
24 Feb 2008
reply to GreyFlcn
NO. That is just not true. Just because the Repiglicans are fascist a**holes, doesn't mean that the Democrats deserve my vote. So it doesn't just subtract from a Democratic candidate's totals when I go vote for Nader or Mickey Mouse, or whomever. That is just flawed logic.
Permalink
frw Posted 10:35 am
24 Feb 2008
making "3rd parties" a joke
Nader was played out by 2004. Now it's an old joke, not even laughable anymore. He's doing a disservice to the goal of having a viable 3rd party. Yes, we need to break the Dem/Rep duopoly of control over American Politics, but Nader takes us in the opposite direction, by affirming anyone associated with him or any 3rd party as a fringe nut with no grasp on the reality of his situation: i.e. he has no chance of winning >5% in any vote. Build the Green Party, foster local elections, work for systemic changes. But until Nadar stops making such public and predictably irrelevant campaigns, he will not only fail to change the system he rails against, but actually makes it harder for anyone else to, as well.
Permalink
johnmcc793 Posted 12:54 am
25 Feb 2008
Blood of Iraq on Nader's hands
Put aside the righteous outcry that you have a right to vote for whom you wish.
There were only two choices in 2000. Nader said he would not allow the election to fall to Bush but Nader did not pull out of the Florida election by telling his supporters to vote for Gore.
Say what yu will abouta Nader's virtue and contributions to consumers. He delivered Bush and Cheney and possibly 600,000 Iraq's are dead; several million displaced; the country in shambles; nearly 4000 American soldiers dead; many thousands of American soliders severely injured; possibly hundreds of thousand of returning American soldiers needing long-term care the White House ignores...what else can you add to this sad list of only one chapter of the past 7.5 years.
Nader will never answer for the mess he caused by goading 97,000 Floridians to vote for him.
Ralph, do you see the difference now! Get out of our face!
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 1:42 am
25 Feb 2008
Blah blah blah
Gore actually won Florida -- but Nader, and only Nader, is to blame for the tame Democratic response to the recount snafu which occurred after the election.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 1:46 am
25 Feb 2008
Oh, and we know FER SHER
that Gore would NEVER have invaded Iraq, despite Gore's remarks about the urgency of removing Saddam Hussein, and despite the Clinton Administration's failure to do so through assassination...
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
billmitchell Posted 3:48 am
25 Feb 2008
Nader
He is an arrogant, pathetic narcicist. For the media to give him the time of day is a tragic waste of time.
Permalink
jmontarsi Posted 4:02 am
25 Feb 2008
Nader
I think Ralph Nader's comments are necessary to the dialogue about where this country is heading. While he won't win the election and while he will do no harm, he may very well help to frame the future dialogue between Clinton and Obmana and the public, serving a function not-unlike that of Edwards. A much needed critical voice in opposition to the DLC.
Jude Rene Montarsi Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, USA
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 4:06 am
25 Feb 2008
Feel the hate
Media blackouts are good for all. Stopper those ears! Close those eyes!
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
polihymnia Posted 4:30 am
25 Feb 2008
Of course, Ralph Nader should run!
The misguided people who cry "Spoiler!" are reacting from their emotions, NOT their values. The truth is, anyone should be able to run for president; it is ridiculous and totally counter to democratic values to imply that one should refrain from running because he or she might cause the lesser-of-the-evils major-party candidate to lose. If an independent "spoils" it for a major party, it is the party's responsibility to take heed of what the people have spoken in voting for the supposed spoiler.
Time and time again, contemporary psychological studies have shown that people who live by their stated values -- NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCES -- are more fulfilled than those who don't. Voting by strategy WON'T CHANGE this country. Your voice, your truth will NOT BE HEARD unless you vote according to your values instead of for the so-so candidate you think has the best chance of defeating the evil-corporate-warmonger candidate.
Permalink
skiingbull Posted 5:00 am
25 Feb 2008
Nader
I'd swear, if I didn't know any better, that big business puts him up to running every year to chip away at the strongest part of the democratic base.
Permalink
Pugglesworth Posted 6:59 am
25 Feb 2008
Where was Nader in the off-years?
I'm sympathetic to Nader's arguments about corporatocracy and I'm thankful for the work that he did in the 60's and 70's.
But.
If Nader was sincere about the arguments that he was making in 2000, why didn't he build a movement in 2001-2003? Where was he? What was he doing? He had the names of hundreds of thousands of supporters. Why didn't he build a movement? He went dark for three years. Then he runs again in 2004, and again he does nothing in 2005-2007.
And his argument that Gore and Bush were Tweedledum and Tweedledum was obvious horseshit in 2000, and even more obviously wrong in retrospect.
To hell with him.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:03 am
25 Feb 2008
Such a difficult choice...
... Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee, whoever the Green Party nominated... they're all soooooo similar. They ALL stand for exact the same things and are just corporate stooges. Not one of them wants to extract us from Iraq, revive diplomacy, build a green economy, or provide some sort of national health care. They're all going to load the Supreme Court with ultra-rightwing nuts. They're all going to dismantle agencies protecting the environment and labor. They're all going to expand the military budget and get rid of non-military programs. It is all sooooooo depressing.
What's a voter to do???
: )
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:09 am
25 Feb 2008
Yeah!
What HAS Nader been doing for the past four years? Enagaged in shuttle diplomacy to end the ongoing crisis in the Middle East? On tour, speaking out against NAFTA? Helping the Green Party ensure it is viable in all 50 states and Puerto Rico? Negotitating with the Democratic Party so he might particpate in the primary/caucus debates? Encouraging supporters to attend primaries and caucuses and write him in if he is not on the ballot? Seeing someone to arrange for an extreme makeover and some help regarding how to appeal to average voters? Why does he come out of his cave only once every four years?
Permalink
esauis Posted 12:08 pm
25 Feb 2008
c'mon everybody
All opinions aside...the fact is that Mr. Nadar has done more for the American people than any of the front runners have done or will ever do in their lifetimes combined. Unless you live Illinois, nobody had ever heard of Obama until a year ago - and now we're willing to give all eggs to this man? I'll vote for Mr. Nadar, otherwise I'd vote for no one.
Permalink
jamessam Posted 12:15 pm
25 Feb 2008
Nader = McCain
A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. Period - no arguing - that is just the way it is. So, if you want a greener president than McCain, then don't vote for Nader.
Permalink
Sharon Posted 12:38 pm
25 Feb 2008
Yeah, Nader DOES = McCain
Looks like our old buddy Ralphie is on another one of his ego trips. He may have a real passion for goodness, but the old ego triumphs, and once again he's going to play spoiler. He has to know, if he has a rational mind, that he has no chance of winning the election, and that he pulls the leftmost voters from the better alternative, ANY Democrat, and throws the advantage to the worse alternative, a Republican.
I guess that only proves that ego overcomes intelligence and rationality every time!
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 1:11 pm
25 Feb 2008
No arguing!
No arguing -- and, while you're at it, don't think, either.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
wesler1 Posted 1:14 pm
25 Feb 2008
Ralph Nader should run
Of course Ralph Nader should run. Cynthia McKinney is already in the race for the Green nomination. It's too bad about the Democrats. If they stood for anything, they wouldn't have to worry about the Greens. If they stood for anything they wouldn't have forced Cynthia McKinney out, and they wouldn't now be trying to force Kucinich out.
Neither Clinton nor Obama offer any meaningful change. They both supported the PATRIOT Act, Iraq War, and Big Coal. They both wimped out on National Health.
Neither one will do anything meaningful on CO2 emissions. Cap and Trade is a farce!
We are now in an energy crises with oil hovering around $100/barrel. All the signs tell us that Peak Oil is here. Neither Democrat proposes anything meaningful in response.
Yes, I know, one wants to spend $50 billion on energy independence! The other wants 10 years to get CAFE standards up to 35 mpg! Take a look at what the Greens are calling for. They believe we're in a crises. They're calling for Manhatten Projects to avert it. Greens would divert the entire $500 billion budget from the Iraq War and spend it on ending our dependence on fossil fuels.
By comparison, the Democrats' posturing is ludicrous.
http://www.northsidegreenparty.org/
Permalink
mobi Posted 1:23 pm
25 Feb 2008
Nader
The last thing any of needs is another show of megalomania by Ralph Nader. I find his tired rhetoric pathetic. The green-est, most effective, vote one can make in this election is to vote Democrat.
mobi
Permalink
jamessam Posted 2:02 pm
25 Feb 2008
Re: No Arguing
Actually, I am thinking... I'm thinking that I don't want John McCain as our president. Are you thinking?
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 6:37 pm
25 Feb 2008
No, that's emoting
and the fact that you can't tell the difference says plenty about you.
I'm thinking about Nader-hating idiots who want to run elections based on conformity (thus bullying nonsense like "a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain"), who would silence the antiwar movement for the sake of prowar Democrats (thus this situation), who brook no criticism of self-seeking fools like John Kerry (thus the violence done to the First Amendment at Kerry's 2004 Boston convention -- "free speech zones" imply that the Constitution only applies in small portions of America), and who can't be bothered to contest elections rigged by the Republicans (both 2000 and 2004) because Ralph Nader is such a convenient scapegoat.
It's quite clear that Nader-haters who just continue to repeat falsehoods that have already been refuted are not doing anything that closely resembles thinking. In fact, if anyone has brought "Republicanism" (what the rest of the world rightly calls "neoliberalism") to America, it's the Nader-haters.
At this point, Ralph Nader himself has been reduced to being a minor-party candidate with a sectarian cult following. He isn't really all that relevant anymore; in 2004 he gained less than 0.4% of the vote. The Nader-haters, however, remain as relevant as ever.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
P Wiele Posted 10:08 pm
25 Feb 2008
Okay, just a moment...
Let's set aside the "Nader ruins elections!" and "Nader doesn't ruin elections!" arguments for a bit and concentrate on the fact that he's entering the race so late. He doesn't have time to build up publicity and support, and therefore, regardless of who he might steal votes from (or whether, in fact, he does) this campaign is just too little, too late.
Why doesn't he make better use of his own time by running for Congress? He could potentially make a bigger policy difference there anyway.
Permalink
Joan Sage Posted 11:06 pm
25 Feb 2008
Nader
Nader is naive to get involved with our corrupt electoral machine
when his real job is to educate and use his media presence to
make the other candidates come clean since he does have all the
right ideas. The "one-party" we have will only use his canditacy
to make fun of his ideas and blame him for all the corruption
in electoral politics like the failed electoral college and they will
take away the attention needed for our tainted voting machines
and primaries and "super-delegates", etc.
Permalink
Glenda2 Posted 11:07 pm
25 Feb 2008
Nader's Run
I have always been grateful for Ralph Nader's efforts on behalf of the American citizens. i totally agree with his focus on Corporate Greed and the colossal waste that has been created by that political force.
I think he has always been on the right track with issues that could be fixed and make this country a healthier and more balanced place for all to live and work in.
But.....i don't think the Presidential races are the right forum for his work!!!!! We have got to get all the votes available just to defeat the Bush machine and Nader could be so much more useful in other ways, just as Al Gore is doing...why doesn't Ralph Nader get that?????
Permalink
Jwirwin Posted 11:30 pm
25 Feb 2008
Ralph Nader
I'm against Mr Nader's run for President. First of all, he would not make a good President. Although I agree with his positions, he is not good at working with people and has a very secretive & aloof lifestyle. He's not like most of us.
Secondly, if he's going to run, he should either be the Green Party candidate, or the Green Party should not run in the Presidental race. Their positions are just about identical.
John W Irwin
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:35 pm
25 Feb 2008
If
Ralph would "fix" the forests, using sound science, I would vote for him. However, NO candidate has shown that they even acknowledge the problems and place ANY emphasis on doing what is necessary to save them. This includes Al, as well.
This seems to come from Americans who also don't have a grasp of the problem and its associated link with the global environment. Who don't feel that forests deserve a plank on anyone's platform.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
scuzball Posted 12:28 am
26 Feb 2008
easy to judge,harder to be honest
I'm impressed with the number of mind-readers here who claim to fully know Nader's motivations. All major reforms in this country were initiated by third parties. Given the dangerous state of this country, we need big reforms more than ever. (I recommend "The End of America" by Naomi Wolf.)
Some of my Democrat friends claim that the Democrats want to maximize electoral participation, while Republicans want to minimize it. The implication is that Democrats support democracy. When it comes to ballot access for minor parties, though, democracy doesn't seem to be valued by the Democrats in power. The monopoly the two major parties have is itself a threat to democracy. Concentration of wealth and power, as Thomas Jefferson said, is one of the greatest threats to democracy.
Nader didn't cause Gore or Kerry to lose, but we love to point fingers. The only way McCain could win is if there is even more massive electoral fraud than we saw in 2000 and 2004. (We still don't even know the full extent of that fraud, but it's clear that there will be plenty of it this year.)
We need many electoral reforms. Public financing of campaigns and instant runoff voting are two really big ones. Both will take a ton of work, so start now. Voting is necessary but not sufficient. Greater pariticipation is required to maintain (and improve) and open society.
Permalink
wallrock Posted 12:40 am
26 Feb 2008
Agreed
Glenda - I think you're absolutely right. There's a lot of ill-will towards Nader, some of it deserved. But he's human, just like the rest of us. I've always believed that Nader had the chance in 2000 to really change things, both for the Green Party and the country. He didn't play his hand though, and it seemed he chose to go down as a martyr for the cause rather than risk excoriation from the True Believers on the left. I think this could have been forgiveable if he'd stuck with the Green Party and tried to build something from the grassroots. But he didn't, and he lost a lot of points in my book for that. As it happened many of his great ideas have been co-opted to an extent by the Democrats. I've always seen Nader in the same light as Kucinich - the change they bring is by pushing the Party from the fringes. But this time around Nader isn't in a position to do this, so it really does seem to be an exercise in ego.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 12:50 am
26 Feb 2008
Beyond the personal
Ironic, the heatedness of the discussion. Consider that almost everyone here agrees on 90% of the issues.
Somehow, we've got to move beyond the focus on any individual. The problems existed before Ralph and they will continue after he has gone.
What's the big picture? How can we move forward?
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
cmello Posted 2:03 am
26 Feb 2008
What's Nader done lately
besides run for President?
No one is questioning that he made a big impact on consumer product safety in the 1960s. He continued to be active in that area in the 1970s.
Ever since then (1980s and onward), he's been fixated on getting elected...first to Congress and then, in the 1990s, to President.
He is running on what he did in the 60s and 70s. That would be like me trying to get hired based on my school achievements from 30 years ago.
A member of the Democratic Party can get elected while Nader is running (he ran in 1992 and in 1996). Yes, the Democratic Party was wimpy in 2000 and in 2004 in not challenging the major corruption in vote counting in those elections. On the other hand, the courts were stacked against them in the states where it occurred and challenging the underhanded vote counting would have been an expensive way of banging their heads against the wall.
Lastly, Nader supporters are being extremely naive by claiming he is blameless for Bush being elected in 2000. Bush "won" Florida by a very small number of votes. Not all Nader voters would have voted for Gore, true, but it is fair to say that enough of them probably would have voted for Gore rather than Bush to have elected Gore despite all the GOP vote tampering.
IMHO, just about anyone (including an imperfect Gore) would have been better for this country, by any method of measurement, than George W. Bush.
cmello
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:12 am
26 Feb 2008
"Nader Haters"
LegumeSam,
You are, in my opinion, jumping to conclusions. I've posted several times elsewhere on this website -- and will not bore people by repeating the remarks -- that Nader has done much good for our nation and people in general. Just because I don't think it is a good idea for him to run for President does not mean I hate the man! I notice several people here share this opinion. You seem to be practicing the same "you're entirely with us or entirely against us" mentality that the current occupant of the White House and, sadly, Ralph Nader practices.
Please consider letting go of your hate for people who might like Ralph Nader and like to see him run for Congress or serve under a Democratic President, but do not want to see him run for President.
Permalink
trailhikingal Posted 2:41 am
26 Feb 2008
Raphie run?
See Ralph. See Ralph run! See Ralph run fast! I wonder how much the Republicans are paying Ralph to make a fool of himself... I think the only place Ralphie is running is to the bank that holds his secret accounts... to deposit a big, big check.
Permalink
Larry L Lynch Posted 2:41 am
26 Feb 2008
Ralph Nader
If Nader really wanted to help he'd take the Gore approach. Anyone who is at all politically observant and can't stand the Shrub knows what Ralph has cost us for eight years. I guess if, as some of my friends think, we have to bottom out before we change, we should thank Ralph and W but I think there is a better way to go, and either of the two Democratic candidates should get a chance to lead the way.
Larry L. Lynch
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 3:07 am
26 Feb 2008
wiscidea --
This isn't about you.
It should be clear to practically any observer of American political discourse that there is a widespread, irrational Nader-hatred out there, and that it manifests itself in a series of false assumptions about politics. I've debunked most of them upthread . There are reasonable means of opposing Nader's run for President -- the Obama campaign has chosen to express them, as evidenced here . The fact of the matter is, however, that most opposition to Nader expresses itself as irrationalism of the worst kind.
Nonsense. Have you even read my last comment, specifically the part where I argued:
And, finally...
Mostly at this point I'm interested in making fun of those who don't like Ralph Nader at all, and want to blame him for everything down to the lean in the Tower of Pisa. Don't want him to run for President? Too bad. America is ostensibly about freedom, the freedom to run for public office. Support your own candidate.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:08 am
26 Feb 2008
reason 1 of 3 for not voting for Nader
Precautionary Principle
We cannot rule out, with a high degree of certainty, that Ralph Nader was responsible for the election and re-election of George W. Bush. As long as it is possible that he will interfere with the election of a Democratic President in 2008, he should not run. If he does run, no one should vote for him.
We should continue using traditional methods of modifying our Federal government until new approaches are fully studied and tested for safety. The traditional methods have provided us with slow and steady improvement for over 200 years -- except for the 2000 election. Why throw a wrench in the system now?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:14 am
26 Feb 2008
reason 2 of 3 for not voting for Nader
He's Not Taking This Seriously
Nader has already missed the filing deadlines to be on the ballot in at least one state -- California! -- and other deadlines are rapidly approaching. If he sincerely wanted to lead this nation in a new direction, he would have been working hard to meet all filing deadlines. He has obviously thought about running for President for years, if not decades. If he is serious, then he should have gotten all his ducks in a row long ago. Is this how he would behave as President?!
I can't vote for a candidate, regardless of how much I might respect him, who does not have a plan for actually winning.
Permalink
topcat Posted 3:17 am
26 Feb 2008
Ralph Nader
Legume sam is appropriately named... he's full of beans!
Time has passed by the actual message Ralph has been braying for years. He is no longer any sort of leader; he has reduced himself to a nag. Do you want to listen to a nag ? Or a leader who can inspire action?
Actually, Mr.Nader, who had to be forced to admit he was of Middle Eastern decent, has become Harold(I'm always running) Stassen! At 73 years and counting let's hope for his legacy his nagging continues, but his running ends!
Topcat
Permalink
jimandre Posted 3:19 am
26 Feb 2008
Not THIS discussion again
This happens every time Nader runs. It brings up the very interesting issue of costs versus benefits. By running, Nader dilutes the democratic candidates chances against a solidified conservative vote. On the other hand, to not run says something serious about choice (or lack of) and the ills of a 2 party system.
The planet needs more voices/representation out there in the electoral process, and Nader has stood for principles most readers in here align with - more so than most liberal (yes I love that word!) candidates, but if Nader's running helps put a republican in office, then it's the worst case scenario (as we have seen). This is a major predicament and it might not change anytime soon. Nader's running only reminds us how few choices we really have.
Maybe all we can hope for at this point is that someone like Ted Savage or Russ Limbaugh runs and takes a percentage of the red vote.
James M. Andre
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:21 am
26 Feb 2008
Freedom
Thanks for the reminder.
Nader is free to run for President.
Others are free to point out it is foolish and beg him to not run for President, or at lease ask others to not vote for him.
It is pointless to discuss this in terms of Nader's right to run for President. No one is seriously suggesting there should be law preventing it.
Permalink
jimandre Posted 3:55 am
26 Feb 2008
freedom2
It is definitely his right, and a vital cog of democracy that we all should hold dear. Rather than placing blame on one minority candidate who exercises his right, or even the electoral process, maybe the real issue we're dealing with here is inappropriate powers of the president over the voters. If a president can override popular sentiment by making decisions like occupying another country without just cause, corporate govt handouts, war on biodiversity, etc..and deny the popular public voice to the contrary, then maybe the power of the president is a bigger issue that who the president is. Whether it's Bush, Gore or Nader in office, idiotic decisions against the wisdom and desires of the populus should not be allowed to happen. And I say this fully aware of the enormous problem of public apathy when it comes active voice in govt, for example, the nearly complete lack of public review in the NEPA process.
James M. Andre
Permalink