Nader for President! Again!

Sun

Feb 24 2008

11:27 am

By: bizgrrl

Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will "shift the power from the few to the many."

Wow! What a surprise. Will anyone take him seriously this time?

Topics:

bizgrrl's blog
Login or register to post comments

The Republicans pay him to

Submitted by djuggler on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 11:48am.

The Republicans pay him to steal votes from the Democrats!

Doug McCaughan
(link...)

You're not serious are you?

Submitted by GBA (not verified) on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 12:12pm.

You're not serious are you? He hates the Republicans much more than he hates the Democrats. Nader is just into Nader. He could care less about anything else. Marches to a different drummer.

He took GOP money in PA

Submitted by Elrod on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 10:06pm.

In 2004 he took GOP money in PA to get on the state ballot. Senator Santorum was behind it at the time. Nader only cares about Nader, and would use GOP money if he needs.

Nader Defends GOP Cash

Submitted by rocketsquirrel on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 10:39pm.

Nader Defends GOP Cash (SFGate, July 10 2004)

sounds like Nader would do anything to get elected. not very principled reformer, IMO. In the article, he wants an end to the influence of "commercial interests" but he's happy to take their cash. Even got into a pissing contest with his running mate about it. Camejo wanted him to return the money. he refused.

21st Cnetury

Submitted by SteveMule on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 12:45pm.

Raplph Nader is 21st Century version of Gus Hall when it comes to Presidential Elections. Mock him.

Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!

SteveMule

Republicans Love Nader

Submitted by Mark N. Foster (not verified) on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 2:20pm.

I think the most telling line in the article was that

"Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, speaking shortly before Nader's announcement, said Nader's past runs have shown that he usually pulls votes from the Democratic nominee. 'So naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race,' the former Arkansas governor said on CNN."

There's a list of purported Nader supporters on the web.((link...)). Do a little Googling, there may be more. If there is someone you know that is supporting Nader, give them a call and tell them that they need to get realistic and not throw their vote away.

I've already told...

Submitted by talidapali on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 2:40pm.

the one person in my family that actually voted for him in the past..."If you waste another vote on that egotistical bastard I will personally come to your house and kick your ass."

_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

really?

Submitted by SammySkull on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 2:45pm.

I have voted for Nader in the past and may do so again. If he runs he will be the only true progressive and the only candidate saying what I believe to be true.

How exactly does Nader steal votes, and what does the term "steal votes" even mean? Are Clinton and Obama somehow more deserving of my votes based solely on the fact that one of them may win? In my opinion, Clinton and Obama are steal votes from people more qualified to bring our nation forward.

As for throwing a vote away, my vote is meaningless to me when I can only use it to vote against someone. I have never been offered a chance to vote FOR a candidate that I like other than Nader, and yes I realize how nonexistent is his chance to win.

Finally, can someone explain why Nader would be a bad president? How would Clinton or Obama be better?

Bush v. Gore

Submitted by Mark N. Foster (not verified) on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 3:07pm.

How many voters in Florida said something just like that in 2000? You think those voters are proud of their Nader 2000 vote?

Democrats are deserving of your vote because if enough Nader admirers do not give it to them, the Republicans will win. Again.

Liberals can talk all the idealistic talk they want, but when it comes to voting, they just need to learn to get real and get behind the Democrats.

Finally, can someone explain

Submitted by Andy Axel on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 3:26pm.

Finally, can someone explain why Nader would be a bad president?

He'd have to win first. And he's not going to win. .38% of the popular vote in 2004.

How would Clinton or Obama be better?

Either one would be better than McCain. That's how.

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

Two words: Supreme

Submitted by Rachel on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 3:46pm.

Two words: Supreme Court.

That's what I said last time, and I was right. Little did I know it was just for starters.

(And Rikki - no, I'm not holding Nader responsible for 2000. He didn't help, but Gore should have won anyway. I'm just saying let's not go there again.)

Two words: Supreme

Submitted by rikki on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 4:15pm.

Two words: Supreme Court

That's a good point. Nader is the only candidate who can really be trusted to nominate judges with enough integrity to point out that Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves from Gore v. Bush. I guess there really is no choice but to vote for him.

Plus, there's nothing like conformist thugs threatening to kick people's asses to remind unaffiliated voters how useless and unprincipled Democrats can be.

Or Kucinich. He could be

Submitted by Hayduke on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 4:34pm.

Or Kucinich. He could be counted on to put some seriously progressive butts on the bench. Lets all write his name in! Or better yet, Peter Pan. He'd fix everything!

Recent advances in porcine aviation notwithstanding, Nader will not be choosing our next Supreme Court Justice.

The math is pretty simple: Unless you're so disgusted that you weren't going to vote at all (in which case, Nader away) and you weren't going to vote for McCain, punching the red button for Ralph takes a vote away from Obama, which works out a lot like giving half a vote to McCain (and a Supreme just like Alito).

Unless you're so disgusted

Submitted by rikki on Sun, 2008/02/24 - 5:03pm.

Unless you're so disgusted that you weren't going to vote at all

Oh. No. You. Did. Not.

How could you so cavalierly undercut the zero-sum analysis of the conformist thugs? Every vote for Nader would have been a vote for Gore. You can't question that. All this talk of half votes and voters who wouldn't show up but to cast a protest vote is just going to hurt the thugs tiny brains.

This isn't some sort of statistical game where you can analyze the butterfly ballot totals relative to statewide results and assign more than 2,000 Buchanan votes to Gore with 99.9% certainty to bring justice to citizens forced to vote on an illegal ballot. This is thuggish simplicity intended to prevent thinking and counting and hard stuff. All Nader votes belong to Democrats, and they'll kick your ass to prove it!

Certainly no on "owns" the

Submitted by bobaubin on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 2:06pm.

Certainly no one "owns" the votes, and I think this whole "stealing" votes argument against Nader is ridiculous. The only vote stealer is Bush. That said, Ralph Nader is not going to win, Barack Obama (or Hillary) very well could and your vote could help make the difference. If you really think there is no difference between Barack Obama (or Hillary) and John Mc-100-years-in-Iraq-Cain then you are wrong. You are welcome to vote for Kermit the Frog if you like but at least understand there is a viable choice that would implement much of the platform Nader purports to represent with a realistic shot at being President and therefore have the ability to implement those things.

Every vote for Nader would

Submitted by Mykhailo on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 7:39pm.

Every vote for Nader would have been a vote for Gore. You can't question that. All this talk of half votes
Speaking of half votes, and Nader's constant complaints about how awful our choices of candidates are and how we need robust third parties -- his silence about preferential voting systems is notable.

his silence about

Submitted by rikki on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 10:58pm.

his silence about preferential voting systems is notable.

It is disappointing. Almost as disappointing as the Democrats' total failure at election reform. The important thing is that we demand everything from Ralph and nothing from them.

Is that Joan Claybrook?

Submitted by rikki on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 2:38am.

Is that Joan Claybrook?

The important thing is that

Submitted by Mykhailo on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 10:31am.

The important thing is that we demand everything from Ralph

Jesus. I'm not demanding everything. But *something* would be nice. Bitching endlessly about how the two parties are hopelessly corrupt and how the system is completely broken is great and everything, but when you have a huge amount of national attention yet go out of your way to remain silent on actual practical means for fixing the problem, you're a complete fucktard.

Btw, today's exercise is a fill-in-the-blanks:

As [blank] in [blank] during the 2002 session, [blank] introduced SB 1789 which would have adopted instant runoff voting (IRV) for congressional and state primary elections in [blank] and authorized IRV for local elections.

and

"Hello this is [blank]. I’m calling to urge your support for Ballot Measure 1 on the August 27th primary election. As a [blank] and as a [blank], I’ve worked hard to open up the political process for all Americans. Ballot Measure 1 will adopt a fairer voting method called instant runoff voting that will lead to good government because Alaska will elect leaders who have the support of a majority of voters. With Measure 1, elected leaders will be more likely to listen to all Alaskans and cities like Anchorage and Fairbanks will be able to enjoy big tax savings and keep majority rule. Measure 1 has support from independent voters and political parties all across the political spectrum. Please see Alaskansforvotersrights.com for more info and please vote “Yes” on Measure 1 on August 27th."

da mob crats

Submitted by rikki on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 11:04am.

Jesus. I'm not demanding everything

Nope, but you're demanding nothing of Democrats. Nader being on the ballot is not Nader's problem; it's the Democrats' problem, and they could solve it by adopting IRV. There are all sorts of reforms they could advocate that would neutralize his impact or keep him from stepping in the race, but their only interest is stepping on Ralph.

The only response from Democrats is character assassination, and plenty of otherwise competent people are raising the mob and handing out pitchforks. Democrats have had control of Congress for more than a year, and the closest they've come to constraining Bush is a glacial inquiry into some personnel changes among federal attorneys. Who is really the fucktard?

Nope, but you're demanding

Submitted by Mykhailo on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 11:37am.

Nope, but you're demanding nothing of Democrats

Ok, I demand that the Democrats support voting system and ballot reform. For instance, introducing bills that would increase the number of elections in which a preferential vote was used would be a good start.

Again -- this issue is pretty much the only point where Nader ever had an opportunity to make a real impact as a presidential candidate. He was, at one time, a genius at effectively promoting highly-focused, single issue campaigns. And in 99-00, lots of people worked hard for his campaign specifically because they wanted to give him a platform to push this particular one, and he pissed all over them by squandering that opportunity. Sorry if I'm bitter, but at this point his only influence in this country is to be a one-man discrediting machine, making it just a little bit harder every time he opens his mouth for anyone else to fix the problems he speaks about.

Who knew?

Submitted by Factchecker on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 9:32am.

He had a running mate?

Captain Hook is a Thug, Too

Submitted by Mark N. Foster (not verified) on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 4:31pm.

rikki,

Hayduke hit the nail on the head. You might as well vote for Peter Pan, rather than Nader. He'll take care of Captain Hook and all the other "thugs." Of course, his chances of getting elected (like Nader's) are nonexistent.

It's just a simple problem, not of "conformism", but of reality. And since others may be too nice to say it, I'll be the "thug": in considering Nader you are playing in Fantasy Land. If you decide to rejoin the real world, please consider that life would be better with a Democrat as our next president than it would be with a Republican.

In the real world, Nancy

Submitted by rikki on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 10:54pm.

In the real world, Nancy Pelosi won't impeach Cheney because she wants to abuse her office for personal gain just like he does.

In Fantasy Land, two parties are adequate to capture the full political diversity of Americans and not a cynical divide-and-conquer construct by which to manipulate the public.

???

Submitted by Mark N. Foster (not verified) on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 3:38pm.

???

What does Pelosi have to do with voting for Nader in Fantasy Land? Check back in when you are ready to join the real world and acknowledge the difference between the real world candidates.

Sorry to jump in, but I'm

Submitted by Hildegard on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 4:38pm.

Sorry to jump in, but I'm pretty sure Rikki didn't suggest he's voting for Nader. Not that how he votes matters or has anything to do with his argument, which assumes that the people with whom he is arguing have the same degree of subject-matter knowledge that he does, rather than the usual superficial party-line support on which people like Obama and Clinton hedge their entire campaigns. And which most Dems enthusiastically endorse. If by "real world" you mean a world in which nobody demands accountability and everybody sucks on the opium of "hope" and "change" without bothering to examine the mechanics by which hope will make change occur, then I'll sign up for the fantasy in which Nancy Pelosi grows a pair and Democrats stop pitching hissy fits every time Nader says "Boo!"

I'll vote for whoever the Democratic whore is in November, but not because I expect much to change. It's just the small, inconsequential part I can play in staving off disaster, though I'm pretty sure it's too late to do much about that.

And I think Nader is a pitiful, bitter reflection of what he once was, but I know what Rikki is saying, and it's not really about Nader, it's about the trouble with Democrats. And this whole thread illustrates what that is.

I'm going to have to

Submitted by Mark N. Foster (not verified) on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 6:28pm.

I'm going to have to disagree with your statement that "Rikki didn't suggest he's voting for Nader." See his comment: "Nader is the only candidate who can really be trusted to nominate judges.... I guess there really is no choice but to vote for him."

He also suggested that he might not vote at all (same difference as voting for Nader, since voting for Nader is like voting for Peter Pan): "Oh. No. You. Did. Not. [discuss not voting at all]."

Both suggestions by Rikki were irresponsible, unlike your acknowledgement that you will vote for the Democrat. Nader fans can talk liberal ideals until the cows come home, but to suggest not supporting the Democrat is not helpful. In the same manner, Nader can talk all he wants, but soliciting votes is irresponsible.

On a somewhat related front, we need an alternate Fantasy Land candidate from the far right to peel off the votes of Republicans disillusioned with McCain.

voter purge

Submitted by rikki on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 7:14pm.

If by November the Democrats have not either impeached Cheney or passed an election reform bill that mandates instant runoff voting by 2010, I am going to vote for Nader as many times as I can in as many different counties as I can drive to, impersonating the recently deceased. And if anybody wants to get drunk that day in exchange for a Nader vote, get in touch! I'll have enough 40 oz bottles of malt liquor to make you ralph.

If you promise to vote for

Submitted by Hildegard on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 7:53pm.

If you promise to vote for Nader, I promise to vote for Ron Paul.

???

Submitted by Mark N. Foster (not verified) on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 8:44pm.

???

kist off

Submitted by rikki on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 10:54pm.

Owners or employees of any of the Del Monte brand of foods are ineligible for prizes.

it could work as an agent of change

Submitted by Chade W. Charles (not verified) on Mon, 2008/02/25 - 11:09pm.

Nader had a successful bid, if he had used it right. Instead of using his popularity negotiate with Gore before the election, he failed to do the right thing and represent the best interest of his followers. He cannot win an election, but he could make a difference.

Perspective

Submitted by Factchecker on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 9:55am.

In the real world...

In Fantasy Land...

In the real world you gotta compromise to get something. I'll take Pelosi over Hastert and Reid over Frist any day. Though the Dems do frustrate me frequently.

In a perfect world, Pelosi and Reid would be ideally suited for my expectations and for the 300 million others in this country. Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect, so I figure I have to adapt and vote accordingly for the best I can realistically expect to get.

Nader can't realistically get elected (and he won't have to be held accountable for actually doing anything). Obama or Clinton can get elected, if Nader doesn't siphon off too many idealist votes. I'm voting for Obama or Clinton and hoping Nader supporters think through this rationally. After all, a corollary definition of insanity is continuing to act contrary to one's own interests while expecting a different outcome.

Don't forget that even though the Democrats...

Submitted by talidapali on Tue, 2008/02/26 - 1:49pm.

regained control of the House and got a barely there majority in the Senate...neither margin of control is bullet-proof. They may want to do all sorts of the things you list, but simply haven't got enough votes to override a Bush veto. If they put all those things on the agenda, the Republicans could ridicule them as much as we here in Tennessee ridicule "the Rep". Nothing kills your ability to get real change accomplished like becoming an object of ridicule.

They have to be very careful which battles they pick to fight...politics is the art of compromising just enough to get the real substantive changes you want without pissing off the other guys enough to make them try to block EVERYTHING you propose.

Ralph Nader hasn't learned that lesson yet. The day he does, I'll happily vote for him. Until then, he is only in the way.

_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

Yes! Nader for Prez

Submitted by Larry Shine (not verified) on Wed, 2008/02/27 - 6:04am.

The Republicrats represent both wings of the Property Party...or should I say the Corporate Party. Either way both houses of Congress and the executive branch have basically all become rich through corporate bribery
That's why I say yes to Nader: he's no Corporate mouthpiece. He tells it like it is, and he addresses the needs of those of us who aren't members of the upper classes

Lost Boy Party

Submitted by Mark N. Foster (not verified) on Wed, 2008/02/27 - 7:50am.

He addresses your needs like Peter Pan addresses the needs of the Lost Boys.

Well, considering Peter Pan

Submitted by SammySkull on Wed, 2008/02/27 - 9:52pm.

Well, considering Peter Pan very successfully seemed to address the needs of the Lost Boys . . .

oh, you mean because it's impossible to draw parallels between literature and real life . . .

Fiction

Submitted by Mark N. Foster (not verified) on Thu, 2008/02/28 - 10:07am.

No, I meant that the concept of either Nader or Peter Pan "addressing needs" was fictional.

Nader is never going to "address" anyone's needs in the sense of being able to affect positive change. He is only going to make the Republicans happy by running an irresponsible campaign.

Check back in when you are ready to join the real world and acknowledge the difference between the real world candidates.

Discussing:

Are Chat bots a waste of time? (1 reply)
Smith & Wesson noise problem (1 reply)
Musicians dropping out of President's Freedom Concert Series (1 reply)
It's time for new blood in Congress, Barnett in - Burchett out (1 reply)
Burning Down The House... (2 replies)
Behind Lege Lies (1 reply)
Peace (1 reply)
Speak your truth, fight and believe. (1 reply)
Large banks have too much AI data center debt? (1 reply)
GOP misleading on federal health care funding (1 reply)
Feds indict civil rights group (3 replies)
Georgia issues burn ban, first time in state history (2 replies)

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Local Media

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Comment viewing options

Discussing:

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Local Media

Lost Medicaid Funding

Search and Archives

TN Progressive

Nearby:

Beyond:

At large:

Government

About