[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 Threaded
Charles Barton Posted 10:11 am
22 Feb 2008
Charles Barton
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:26 am
22 Feb 2008
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 11:02 am
22 Feb 2008
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
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
grist.org
Permalink
greenguy12312005 Posted 11:45 am
22 Feb 2008
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 11:46 am
22 Feb 2008
"I, John McCain, do solemnly swear..."
Honestly, what is wrong with you people?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:48 am
22 Feb 2008
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
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
Permalink
slothman Posted 12:51 pm
22 Feb 2008
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 12:53 pm
22 Feb 2008
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
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
Permalink
Steven T Posted 2:59 pm
22 Feb 2008
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
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
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
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
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
"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
Permalink
pbumpers Posted 3:55 am
23 Feb 2008
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 6:03 am
23 Feb 2008
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
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
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
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
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
grist.org
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:46 am
23 Feb 2008
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 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
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
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
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
This is a prediction. Predictions are not facts.
FACT: If Nader runs, the democratic candidate will get less votes.
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
Then the Green Party will actually lose even more of what little popular support it currently has.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Dammit.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 2:32 am
24 Feb 2008
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:50 am
24 Feb 2008
Simple as that.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 3:02 am
24 Feb 2008
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
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
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 was on the ballot in my state, California.
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.
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
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
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
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: ... we have all been brought up to believe that voting is crucial in determining our destiny, that the most important act a citizen can engage in is to go to the polls and choose one of the two mediocrities who have already been chosen for us. It is a multiple choice test so narrow, so specious, that no self-respecting teacher would give it to students.
And sad to say, the Presidential contest has mesmerized liberals and radicals alike. We are all vulnerable.
... I'm talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.
But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:40 am
24 Feb 2008
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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:
The Center for Responsive Politics looked at our support, found only 4% of it came from republican donors. They also found that John Kerry has received 100 times more support from republican donors than we have.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 8:39 am
24 Feb 2008
Well, Ralph Nader seems to be asking us to reject every candidate who does not agree with 100% of his values.
What evidence supports this assertion?
And what's wrong with running against the neoliberal status quo?
He did not try very hard to become the Green Party nominee.
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
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
Permalink
kjmiller Posted 10:08 am
24 Feb 2008
Permalink
frw Posted 10:35 am
24 Feb 2008
Permalink
johnmcc793 Posted 12:54 am
25 Feb 2008
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
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
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
billmitchell Posted 3:48 am
25 Feb 2008
Permalink
jmontarsi Posted 4:02 am
25 Feb 2008
Jude Rene Montarsi
Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, USA
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 4:06 am
25 Feb 2008
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
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
Permalink
Pugglesworth Posted 6:59 am
25 Feb 2008
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
What's a voter to do???
: )
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:09 am
25 Feb 2008
Permalink
esauis Posted 12:08 pm
25 Feb 2008
Permalink
jamessam Posted 12:15 pm
25 Feb 2008
Permalink
Sharon Posted 12:38 pm
25 Feb 2008
I guess that only proves that ego overcomes intelligence and rationality every time!
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 1:11 pm
25 Feb 2008
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
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
mobi
Permalink
jamessam Posted 2:02 pm
25 Feb 2008
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 6:37 pm
25 Feb 2008
Actually, I am thinking... I'm thinking that I don't want John McCain as our president. Are you thinking?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 12:50 am
26 Feb 2008
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
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
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
Permalink
Larry L Lynch Posted 2:41 am
26 Feb 2008
Larry L. Lynch
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 3:07 am
26 Feb 2008
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.
You seem to be practicing the same "you're entirely with us or entirely against us"
Nonsense. Have you even read my last comment, specifically the part where I argued:
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.
And, finally...
Please consider letting go of your hate for people who might like Ralph Nader
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
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
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
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
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
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
James M. Andre
Permalink
Bfeuchtwanger Posted 4:15 am
26 Feb 2008
He did wonderful things for the us early in his career, but it is time to let go, and not let his ego get in the way messing this election up.
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 4:39 am
26 Feb 2008
Ralph Nader did not invent the idea that "There is no difference between a Democrat and a Republican". He merely said aloud what many of us had been thinking throughout the Clinton years.
As for trying to reform the Democratic Party from within, I have to say, I'm skeptical. Brave souls like Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee have been trying to do that for years, with very little success.
Let the jaguars return!
Permalink
MuddPi Posted 4:52 am
26 Feb 2008
Do you even understand how politics in this nation has come to work, not how it's supposed to work, but how it has actually "evolved" to require huge sums of money, influence peddling, and tomfoolery- the stuff you complain about when Republicans do it, but look the other way when done by Democrats??
We do not have a two-party system carved in stone tablets. That is not the way our nation was initially designed and until late in the last century, third parties flourished and were responsible for many of the breakthroughs in civil rights and suffrage, and other progressive movement in our society. With that kind of success, politicians wanted more control of the masses and hence worked to solidify two parties in control- much easier for them to pay off and control themselves.
You write as if you actually like the "money, entrenched power, and entrenched organization" and won't lift a finger to change these. Too bad.
You'll never succeed at anything if you don't even try. I'm sure you never tell your children this either.
I don't understand why it is so hard for you and others like you to understand.
You can go along and try to rebuild the progressive wing of the Democratic party, go ahead. But just take a good hard look at what your party did to Denis Kucinich. They locked a dedicated Democratic Congressman, a man elected to office, not some hack, OUT OF THE DEBATES!!!
Now tell me you understand something?
That they locked a bonafide candidate like Ralph Nader, out of the presidential debates is one thing, Kim Jung Il and Fidel Castro could not have engineered a better lock out of debate in a free society there- but to effectively silence one of their own???
Ain't no rebuilding of the democratic wing of the Democratic party happenin there honey!!
Keep on dreaming- but don't limit the good work of third parties trying to keep the American dream alive for all of us and the entrenched back in their trenches.
If multiparty democracy is good enough for our troops to die for in Iraq, it's good enough for the U.S. to enact!
Register, vote, respect third parties!
Permalink
MuddPi Posted 5:12 am
26 Feb 2008
Ranked Choice Voting would go a long way to cure the ills we're all beeyatching over.
We who believe democracy means that we deserve to get a honest to real choice of candidates, get to see our candidates on the ballot and actually vote for them.
It works for Dems and Repubs too . . .
(for instance Did you want to vote for Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards or Fred Thompson?
Was he even on the ballot when you got your chance or when your state finally is allowed to have a primary?)
And Democrat's & Republican's fears that votes they actually "own" are going to some third party candidate could be assuaged knowing that once the dark horse was eliminated, all the second choices they deserve would come to them.
Unfortunately, what that takes entirely out of the picture, is the Electoral College, the Supremes, and the scapegoat.
And what would folks do without a Nader to beeyatch about?
If multiparty democracy is good enough for our troops to die for in Iraq, it's good enough for the U.S. to enact!
Register, vote, respect third parties!
Permalink
blacksheep Posted 5:20 am
26 Feb 2008
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 5:58 am
26 Feb 2008
Yeah, if you think Reagan was an improvement over Carter.
Why throw a wrench in the system now?
It depends upon what you want. Do you want neoliberals running the White House until Earth's ecosystems can no longer take the stress? Then the existing system is your ticket.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
MuddPi Posted 5:59 am
26 Feb 2008
Our Chicago Potemkin village convention will hold forth in July of this year-
at the Palmer House Potemkin Hilton. If Nader doesn't give the keynote we may try for Paris.
I don't understand what you mean by gatekeepers, other than the ones I'm familiar with who try to keep the "wrong" candidates from running by preventing their participation in debates. In that case, the Democrats have them in excess and exercised them well in the cases of Kucinich and Gravel, and the media has their own set when you look at the coverage of some of the other candidates, and indeed, the Green Party's primary participation on Super Tuesday. Considering we've been criticized for having included amongst our nominees one scientist, one dreadlocked woman, and one rap musician, I don't think that our own gates are kept too tightly and still admit an admirable diversity.
and there are Green parties in the other 46 states already, I assure you. Organization and attendance may have faltered in a few, but we are alive, well and kicking overall.
You know, Ralph Nader traveled extensively during each of the previous elections helping to grow the party, appearing at events and fundraisers in and out of election years (Howie Hawkins sent out a very descriptive list to those of us naysayers who felt Nader did little for party building and remain chagrined he didn't change his party affiliation officially like McKinney has done at least). But even if I were the chair of the DNC, knowing how many Greens change their's back and forth from G to D to G again wouldn't make me feel any better than having to face the idea that 30,000 registered Dems in Florida voted for Bush in '04). We can't be built upon a cult of personality, something the Dems will realize too the first time Clinton or Obama trip up and disappoint some group of party loyalists, which will happen if it hasn't already.
If multiparty democracy is good enough for our troops to die for in Iraq, it's good enough for the U.S. to enact!
Register, vote, respect third parties!
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 6:05 am
26 Feb 2008
I keep the Earth happy by encouraging nitrogen fixing.
Time has passed by the actual message Ralph has been braying for years.
It's true! Let's look at some examples in this link: single payer health care, cutting the military budget, promoting solar energy, fighting corporate crime, imposing carbon taxes, changing Mideast policy, repealing Taft-Hartley, imposing speculation taxes, yep, all of them irrelevant.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 6:41 am
26 Feb 2008
As it stands, the electoral party has forged way ahead of any green movement (and look, as someone who attended the founding convention of the Green Alliance in New Orleans in January of '02, I know what a green movement is). In most states, the Green Party exists on the strength of its candidates, and most voters for these candidates are not registered Green.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:57 am
26 Feb 2008
Permalink
craigs21 Posted 7:15 am
26 Feb 2008
We have a lot of good candidates out there this year. I think Obama vs McCain gives us good choices. McCain is not Bush, in fact he is more of an anti-Bush. I don't think McCain likes Bush at all.
I actually believe McCain could do more good for the green movement than Obama. He will be able to get enough Republicans to support reasonable green legislation and get it passed. Look at his record and his position on global warming. He is not Bush.
Permalink
cmakbb9 Posted 7:15 am
26 Feb 2008
Perhaps people have failed to realize that this is about something bigger than a presidency. Yes, Nader is "running for president" but he is not trying to win an election. He is trying to be a good American.
He, among all candidates, is the potentially most American candidate running. Most people will (stereotypically) regard McCain, being a Veteran and POW, as this ideal title. However, Nader, of all people, has accomplished the most in the name of the people.
Without him there would be no seatbelts nor airbags in cars, no nutrition facts on food items...these among many other things have come to be largely because of his influence. He was calling for green and sustainable awareness YEARS before Al Gore ever took an interest.
Perhaps you aren't familiar with the fact that, last election, the so-called "most green president we could have had" and the current president barred Nader from the debates. He was even given a ticket by a student, not to attend the debates, but to watch the debate in a room NEAR the debate grounds. A police entourage was waiting there and prevented him from even viewing the debate ON TELEVISON.
I believe that Nader is amongst the least corrupt politicians and for that very reason the media will not endorse his ads, large corporations scorn him (aka less funding) and people have no respect for him (aka make him a scapegoat as he has no "corporate wealth" backing him).
Therefore, the man who is most attuned to our (Americans') needs will never become president simply because he is too right for the job.
(P.S. you all should really check out the PBS special on Nader...what a concept:a politician on Public Broadcasting (aka non-corrupt television/ media))
Permalink
kentobean Posted 8:03 am
26 Feb 2008
Those of us on the progressive sidelines might want to view these negative reactions to a Nader candidacy as reflective of our tacit realization of the futility of our two-party democracy. While the Democratic candidates berate each other in vain attempts to sway an already decided or alienated electorate, Ralph reminds us of some of the issues that we aren't demanding that our current slate of candidates address: climate change; social justice, equity, and welfare; meaningful health insurance reform; social responsibility; and some semblance of economic security for all Americans.
Ralph reflects the frustration that many Americans feel--including those who gasp at the prospect of another candidacy--when we see our electoral system in such a dysfunctional state. We have confronting us significant challenges, both foreign and domestic, to which none of the candidates appears to be able to meaningfully respond. So if Ralph wants to make a go of it, I say "Power to the people! Go, Ralph!!" I may not vote for him, but I'll certainly defend his right to provide us with an alternative to the current slate.
Kent Hurst
School of Urban and Public Affairs
University of Texas at Arlington
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:51 am
26 Feb 2008
Only two of the current candidates for President have replied to Project Vote Smart's questions... Green Party candidates Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift.
Go to ....
http://www.votesmart.org/election_president_search.php?ty ...
... and click on their names for information. If you think the Green Party is not liberal enough, progressive enough, or green enough, you have not read about their positions on various issue.
None of the Democrats, Republicans, other Green Party candidates, or Ralph Nader are willing to go on the record at Project Vote Smart's website where it is easy to compare various candidates for President and other offices.
If Nader is truly better than the Democratic or Republican parties, why doesn't he support efforts like Project Vote Smart to ensure voters are fully informed?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:59 am
26 Feb 2008
Excellent! My apologies to all Nader supporters. I apparently have only two reasons for not voting for Ralph Nader. I will study the information he provided regarding various issues and, perhaps, return with other comments.
Now, if only Obama and Clinton would respond...
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:01 am
26 Feb 2008
Peace.
Permalink
simple peasant Posted 3:28 pm
26 Feb 2008
No matter whether or not we actually believe what the candidates are telling us...
Should we consider on which book a candidate swears his oath of office or if he participates in the pledge of allegiance?
Do we really want someone leading our country who votes yes for a major war and then explains she voted yes because she didn't think it would really happen?
Lebanon is a history lesson we should not ignore.
simple peasant
Permalink
jamessam Posted 5:04 pm
26 Feb 2008
Let's drop to personal attacks, putting words into peoples mouths, the name calling, etc.
I simple prefer to live in today's reality and vote for someone who is electable. Nader is not electable. And, by the way, these statements say nothing of what I think, believe or feel about Nader. So, try and refrain from calling me an idiot again. You really have no clue about what I feel, think, or believe as much as you would like to think you do.
Let's just stay focused on the issues. You don't believe that Nader influenced the past elections and I (along with plenty of others) believe that he did. I find your reasoning stated in numerous posts unconvincing. And, I believe that he could take some (notice that I didn't say all) far left votes from the democratic candidate this election. That 'some' could add up to something measurable and tilt the election toward McCain.
Simple agreeing to disagree is much more mature than name calling.
Permalink
jamessam Posted 5:09 pm
26 Feb 2008
RUN RUSS RUN! I love it! Great post.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 9:51 pm
26 Feb 2008
If I'm "emotional," I think the "emotion" I'm "defending" is, well, laughter, but mostly at the expense of Nader-haters. They, after all, promote Nader as the ideal scapegoat for the misdeeds of the Democratic Party, which wishes to promote neoliberalism as a sort of sweet, tasty Kool-Aid.
Let's drop to personal attacks, putting words into peoples mouths, the name calling, etc.
This from the respondent who started the conversation with: "A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain."
I simple prefer to live in today's reality and vote for someone who is electable.
What kind of political principle is "electable"? Will it grant us good policy? Or is it a sort of high-school speculation about who Johnny and Amber and Mikey are going to vote for -- "Oh, I'm going to vote for their candidate so I can be popular too!"
So, try and refrain from calling me an idiot again.
Well, you did say "A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain" after I'd already refuted it: specifically, I said that Nader's vote totals are not added to McCain's. Repetitions really do add to the debate -- I'm not sure how, but they do. But please do tell me where I said that "jamessam is an idiot" or "A vote for jamessam is a vote for McCain" or any other such name-calling.
You don't believe that Nader influenced the past elections and I (along with plenty of others) believe that he did.
Now here's a fun technique: equivocation. The real issue is, of course, whether or not Nader can be blamed for George W. Bush.
But let's roll with "influence," shall we? In 2004, Ralph Nader came in with less than 0.4% of the vote. If all of those votes had been added to John Kerry's totals, would Ken Blackwell have abstained from hacking the Diebold computers tabulating the Ohio vote, thus allowing Bush to win Ohio? And what would Kerry have done differently than Bush?
In 2000, Al Gore actually won the vote in Florida, thus meriting Florida's seventeen electoral votes. This despite the Democratic Party's refusal to contest Florida Governor Jeb Bush's widespread, illegal scrubbing of non-criminal "felons" from the voter rolls in what were, basically, Democratic safe counties. But the Republicans screwed up the vote count, with the sum of Al Gore's "resistance" being a demand for recount in only four counties. The result was, then, decided by the Supreme Court. Bush was, ultimately, made President by a 5-4 vote. Was Nader's influence on the Supreme Court such that it felt obliged to vote 5-4 for Bush?
I find your reasoning stated in numerous posts unconvincing.
Would paying attention to said reasoning change your results? What would offering coherent counter-arguments do for you?
And, I believe that he could take some (notice that I didn't say all) far left votes from the democratic candidate this election.
What's he going to do? Smuggle the votes out in a bag? And how is any Democrat entitled to those votes?
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 10:10 pm
26 Feb 2008
RUN RUSS RUN! I love it! Great post.
I think his name is "Rush," although a Russ Feingold candidacy might be fun... Yeah, the more right-wingers, the better: that will set the agenda on, what, "self-destruct"?
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:10 pm
26 Feb 2008
By that same margin, how is Nader entitled to dashing the hopes of the rest of the left wing?
You know, the ones that care more about results, than idealogical posturing.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 11:30 pm
26 Feb 2008
What left wing?
Is there, for instance, an antiwar movement in this country? There isn't? It must be Nader's fault, for he (and only he) dashes the hopes of the rest of the left wing!
It couldn't be because of the Democrats, who were elected to majorities in Congress and the Senate with the hopes of doing something to end the war, and yet continued to pass spending bills with Bush's war requests. Everyone knows the Democrats are liberals, and thus clean and pure. No, it's Nader's fault!
As for whether or not Nader is entitled to anything, let's see, you have the right to run for public office... well, something's gotta change! We'll pass a new Constitutional amendment, called "GreyFlcn's amendment," which will somehow deny Nader (and maybe a few other mere commoners) the right to run for President.
You know, the ones that care more about results, than idealogical posturing.
Results? Let's name 'em. The trajectory of the "liberal Democrats" in the so-called "progressive movement" is from George McGovern's 1972 Presidential nomination (which had competent numbers until Terry Eagleton backed out of the Vice-Presidency) to Dennis Kucinich's 2% showing this year. Oh, our "caring about results" has brought us sooooo much, only to be spoiled by that stock villain, Ralph Nader!
As for "idealogical (sic) posturing," the Republicans have been doing such posturing since Nixon pursued his Southern strategy, and what did it get them? Well, Nixon/ Ford, but then Reagan, Bush I, the "Contract With America," and finally Bush II...
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
klschrad Posted 5:26 am
27 Feb 2008
I believe he is just a publicity junkie because realistically there is no way he will win - he will only harm as he has in the past by joining in at this late date.
Permalink
walt k Posted 5:50 am
27 Feb 2008
There is a battle within the Democratic party that is getting hotter all the time. Groups like PDA and DFA and Progressive Majority are organizing our base and fighting back against the corporate toadies. A surprising number of long-time Dems in leadership positions are actually breathing a sigh of relief. They weren't for the shift to GOP-lite, but there were no rank and file activists to back them up. Our record turnout at the Washington State caucuses will lead to a much more progressive (and a much younger) state party after we reorganize in Jan. 2009. This is happening in every state.
If you think being a Green at this point will be more effective than being a progressive democrat, you are sorely mistaken. The people can take over the Democratic Party, and then we can retake our country.
---Walt K
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 6:41 am
27 Feb 2008
all this "return to the cave man days" regarding the environment would not have happened as it has under the Bush administration.
If Earth's environment were to "return to the cave man days," it would be the sort of incredible victory for biodiversity that none of us can even begin to imagine.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
Ryan L Posted 12:49 am
28 Feb 2008
A vote for Nader is not a throw away vote. I live in a RED state. Very Red. voting for Nader means I took away from the 30% of my state that votes Blue. Ouch! Big hit to the election. If I can contribute to a possible third party being economically supported by the government I will.
Are we to assume that a two party system best represents all of American society? That there are two kinds of people in this nation? If that is the case then perhaps I need to find another country, because this one is simply not diverse enough.
To close with a quote:
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
Permalink
billydave Posted 6:28 am
29 Feb 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlnyWEuMAuw
If I were you, I'd buy gold... and ammo.
billy dave
Permalink
averagejane123 Posted 9:28 am
07 Sep 2008
There's not much time left to make a very important decision, hopefully
based upon more than who's sarcastic banter is most witty or cutting.
I had a chance to meet Ralph Nader recently,
it was even better than I'd imagined;
he was even more genuine, even more inclusive, even more inspiring...
If you ever get a chance to see Ralph Nader up close and personal,
regardless of your politics, I don't think you'll be disappointed.
He is a rare treasure, a remarkable presence.
And with Ralph Nader being the only presidential candidate
committed to visiting all 50 states (rather than just those places
others hope to temporarily woo in exchange for votes),
there's a real chance you could meet him, or at least see him speak,
live and in person, for yourself.
A chance to see first hand that he talks about real issues,
and real people, and about things that matter in the long term;
he doesn't waste a lot of time nitpicking, he doesn't parrot a bunch
of catch phrases you've heard over and over again...
While his words are certainly not empty,
he proves with his actions what he stands for;
he doesn't seem to feel such a need to tell you, to sell you,
to impress upon you how clever he is, to convince you, to win you over...
he treats you like an equal, like a person with a brain;
he tells the truth.
And despite all that - a great smile, a sense of humor,
and a very warm heart shine plainly through.
Whether you get a chance to see Ralph Nader or not, maybe you'll consider
the idea that this whole process ought to be more like a job interview,
and less like a popularity contest, less like a horserace,
less like a beauty pageant.
A job interview that we, the people, are conducting;
a job interview that we, the people, are in charge of and accountable for;
and if we decide to hire the best person for the job,
then the best person will get the job.
If we voted for a president based upon proven qualifications,
we might actually get a qualified president.
If we voted for someone with a lifelong record
confirming their integrity and character,
we might actually get someone more interested in (and capable of) doing
good work, real work, meaningful work for all of us,
than in advancing their own interests or avoiding scandal.
We can make a better choice, a more informed, empowering choice.
If you want to vote for a real maverick...
Ralph Nader's clearly your man.
He's spent his entire life bucking the system to protect your safety
and defend your liberties, regardless of your party affiliation, your religion,
your station in life, your class status, your race, your gender, your age,
or how much money you have or have not.
He's fought fearlessly and tirelessly for you, because it is the right
thing to do, and he cares about you; he cares about America.
If you want to vote for real change...
Again, Ralph Nader is your man.
He's demonstrated time and again that he can affect positive change
for the welfare of all. He's shown that he knows how to navigate
his way through our bureaucratic structure,
how to stand up to the big guy on behalf of the little guy - and win,
he's shown he knows how to work within a system that often values power
and greed more than justice, without becoming corrupt himself,
without being led astray by personal ambition or ego.
He's been quietly changing all our lives for the better, all along,
he's not asked for anything in return, not even acknowledgement;
and he keeps on working to help us all - and has established repeatedly
that he'll continue to do so, regardless of any outcome.
Well, I know I got a bit long-winded,
I hope that's not kept anyone from reading to the end.
Again, please continue to think about it, to mull it over,
and please think for yourself, and about yourself...
Hey, how about this...
a vote for Ralph Nader is really a vote for yourself!
and for everyone who matters to you.
So, here's a great place to visit for a candidate comparison chart,
and details about many key issues that affect us all,
but that we're not hearing much about...
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
And here's where to find out where Ralph will be in the coming weeks...
It doesn't cost much to go see him, and I'm so afraid of what it will cost us all
if we don't wake up this year.
http://www.votenader.org/events/
Finally, if you want to know more about Ralph (including
what he's done for you lately) from less biased sources...
please check these out!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/nad0pro-1
Thank you again for your consideration...
It means so very much to me, but it's about all of us...
and it's about time.
Permalink