When Old Things Become New Again: Nader Exploring a Possible 2008 Spoiler Candidacy
By Bill W. Wednesday Jan 30, 2008 9:30am 
So Ralph Nader has launched an exploratory website that ironically asks "Which side are you on?" Right back at you, Ralph.
Download | play 
Download | play
Last time around Nader was backed by Koch's rightwing think tank corporate front group, Citizens for a Sound Economy (now FreedomWorks), so don't be surprised this time when the billionaire-financed rightwing attack machine Freedom's Watch backs him with their supposed $250 million dollar war chest. I'm just saying. CNN's Abbi Tatton tells that Nader is saying that if he can "raise 10 million dollars and to rustle up enough lawyers to help him get ballot access, then he is definitely going to do this," and we already know Ralph doesn't have a conscience problem with getting his back scratched by Republicans.
Login or Register to post comments.
Good Morning!
I had almost forgotten the unfounded hate "Democrats" have for Nader.
What is wiht this guy? Wasn't he happy enough with Bush?
Damn, if hillary is the democratic candidate I may find myself voting for Ralph. If she is the nominee-and I think that guarantees a Republican president-this will likely be a big year for 3rd party candidates.
Nadementum!
Watch out for the Straight Talk Corvair coming to a neighborhood near you!
If true, Ralph is a tool. When money carries the constitutional right of free speech, society is doomed.
Oh for pete's sake! So the US political-media elites foist triangulating Hillary and Lieberman's disciple Obama on you, ... and after a dismal Democratic-controlled legislature gives bush II everything he wants, you guys still want to trash Nader?
Your country is doomed.
Look, I appreciate all the good Nader has done in the comsumer/commerce areas, saved a lot of lives and a lot of money for regular folks. But, it's time for him to give this presidential run thing a rest. Kind of reminds me of Harold Stassen (sp?), the perennial candidate. If he runs, he'll most likely be ignored this time around, as it should be.
Nader really dislikes the Wall Street dems (Clintons) just like I do.
Unlike Nader, I will hold my nose and vote for a Wall Street dem (Clinton) because as an adult, I know that the tooth fairy, Jesus, and the perfect candidate are all fictitious entities.
Oh no! An actual progressive candidate is gonna mess things up for the not-quite-as-conservative-as-the-Republicans party!
Tom Tomorrow nails it again: how the Dems pull together.
http://action.credomobile.com/comics/2008/01/with_us_or_against_us.html
Who didn't see this coming, as part of the corporatist strategy of dictating who all of the surviving candidates would be?
However, if Nader doesn't win the Green Party nomination, he won't be able to run as a Green. From some of the reading I've been doing, there are about 5 Greens competing for their Party's nomination, which will be determined next week at their national convention. Nader says he is considering a draft run for the nomination, but success doesn't seem likely, as there are too many Greens who apparently don't like the guy. If he runs as an independent, it is going to be unmistakenly clear that he will be running as an independent corporatist, which means that there will still only be a one party menu of choices. Nader's imvolvement, with corporate sponsorship is just corporate/banking America's effort to tie up loose ends as regards their complete control over the electoral process.
Ralphie's welcome if Hillary is the nom.
It's not Nadar's fault that all the major candidates are corporatists.
How about a Bloomberg/Nader ticket? One billionaire who could wreck this election and one proven spoiler.
Or is there room for only one third party egomaniac?
homer www.altara.blogspot.com
Dear Ralph Nader,
Go fuck yourself you ego fucking maniac! No one wants your delusional ass running, so back to the Unibomber's old shack. Haven't you have screw up enough?
WWWAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Our party & platform are so weak that a third party candidate getting 4% will sink us!!!! Boo fucking hoo!!!!!!!!!
Have you people forgotten that it was Nader who spared us the horrors of an AL GORE administration?!
I shudder to think where we'd be now without him.
Ingrates.
Left&Left @ 16:
Screwed up what exactly? The fixed stolen elections? C'mon now. Like Obama & Billary aren't corporate shills who would sell your mother for a latte?
What exactly is Nader spoiling? Why not allow people who oppose the war in Iraq, big pharma, imperialist trade agreements like NAFTA, the privatization of Social Security (Bill Clinton had this in the works until the Monica Lewinsky scandal killed the momentum), war with Iran, a green light to Israeli expansionism, etc., etc., ad nauseum. I don't challenge the right of John Amato or anybody else to hold their nose on election day and pull the lever for Hillary Clinton, just spare us the anti-democratic impulse to suppress Ralph Nader.
You can't be a spoiler when the whole damned thing is rotten.
Ralph Nader
Attention whore first class
While it's questionable as to whether Nader cost us the election in 2000 (other than rampant voter fraud in a state where the winner's brother is the governor and the secretary of state may have been having an affair with said brother) ... he certainly didn't help.
But, come on. The cluelessness is self-evident. You've got a government that's practically in free-fall, an economy that's tanking, one-and-a-half wars straining our military past the breaking point, and a national debt that has doubled (not an easy task when you're talking trillions of dollars) ... and Nader thinks he's the remedy?
BDM @ 17:
::: looks at Nancy Pelosi :::
::: looks at Harry Reid :::
::: looks at Dianne Feinstein :::
You were saying?
Shadowgm wrote: :: looks at Nancy Pelosi :::
::: looks at Harry Reid :::
::: looks at Dianne Feinstein :::
Your point please?
All 3 are on Judicial Watches list of top 10 corrupt politicians.
If Hillary is the nom and the election is a squeaker, Nader will bleed enough votes from the Dems to cost the election. But with Hillary as the nom a lot of people will think it's worth it.
There is less of a chance of this happening of Obama gets the nom with Edwards as a strong presence in his campaign.
Notice he jumped in after Kucinich and Edwards dropped out.
Ralph is right - Corporate control of this country's politics is THE biggest problem we face as a nation.
Ralph is wrong - Democrats are not the same as Republicans.
If the Democrats cannot win this time around with Nader in the mix, it says something very sad about the state of our country.
CalGeorge wrote: Democrats are not the same as Republicans.
Notice you didn't say 'Democrats are better than Republicans'.
Two completely different statments.
The first, IMHO, true.
The second false.
As far as Ralph getting "his back scratched by Republicans," Hitler took large amounts of money from the Rothchilds, who thought they could control him, and we all know how well that worked out.I"m sure Nader would get the same pleasure of backstabbing his Repub donors in the back(not the greatest character reference in the world, to be sure.) The only time I ever felt I was voting for someone, and not just voting against someone else, was when I voted for Ralph Nader. You can't say Nader cost Gore Florida, since a recount showed Gore actually carried the state. And Ralph didn't stop the recount.
So .... now we know he is a shill for the right-wing ...
Don't like that, write letters, tell your friends to write letters.
Organize protest against him running. But most of all, write letters to the editorial sections of your local news-rags.
mo_dems @ 2:
Why is it unfounded? Think of the last 8 years in America... got it? Ok now imagine how it might have been had Gore been president.
See? The hatred comes naturally!
goatboyslim @ 29:
He also took plenty of support from grandpa bush.
A shill for the right wing??????
We could say that about Hillary supporters since she is the right wing's ideal democratic candidate. Her nomination will hand the election to whatever scumbag the republicans pick.
goatboyslim @ 29:
Hitler at least had a shot at winning.
hmm.. people are going to vote for Nader... and if Hillary doesn't win.
I find it funny.. republicans vote for their party regardless of the choice. I'm afraid about Nadar... because let's admit it.. Though they're corrupt.. they got their stuff together.. The side against them are still divided.. I think that's why Bush one last time. A majority vote is needed.. The point of the primary was to work up a majority vote between people aiming for the position.
With Nadar coming in without going through the process... It's like one of those people who lost coming back as an Independant.
Rusty Shackleford @ 335:
And this is why the democrats lost to Bush in 2004, and are being held hostage by Joe Lieberman in congress. Stand for nothing, and nothing is what you get.
underdog @ 333:
Thats really funny.....Thats like going to a gun fight with a knife.
littlehorn @ 292:
Why not go back to the 1500s while you are at it? No third party candidate has a chance of winning, so why vote for someone you know has no chance? Oh yeah, principles. Tell that to me and mine while the Republicans are screwing us over for another 4 years.
ysbaddaden @ 356:
If you think mike's screeds are legitimate debate, then I honestly don't know what to say to you.
Beelzebud @ 359:
So they should stand for whatever it is that Nader stands for? Which is... uh... well, he wrote that book forty years ago, that was good... airbags and seat belts are good... and, uh... he sometimes says stuff... and he wears off-the-rack suits to prove he's a Man Of The People... yeah, the Dems should try that.
Rob @ 342:
Perhaps when your glorious Nader and Paul have something to run on, we'll take notice. BTW, have you ever looked into Ron Paul's voting record?
Screw the UN.
Sucks for Sudan, but he's not interested.
Screw the environment. Onward to ANWAR.
Voted to shield oil corporations from contamination lawsuits.
And he's no friend of increasing fuel economy standards.
Believes oil companies should not have to pay royalties for drilling in a state's offshore waters.
Kyoto Protocol = bad.
Paul gets an 'F' from the IAVA on "supporting the troops".
Screw OSHA's ergonomic rules.
Screw increasing mine safety standards.
To hell with the Unions.
Certainly not a friend to campaign finance reform.
Debt as a black hole? Sure. Why not.
Not a lover of class action lawsuits that protect people from corporate abuse and negligence.
Forget universal health care. If you get sick and either can't afford it or barely can and your coverage is pathetic, oh well. Best of luck to you.
Are you black and were you able to vote in 1965? Ron Paul voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Separation of Church and State? Not on Ron Paul's watch.
And to be such a self-claimed Constitutionalist, he sure wants to scrap that pesky Fourteenth Amendment.
So if that's what you agree with, then yes, by all means. Vote for him. But do your research before you pick heroes.
I think Nader, Paul, and LaRouche supporters should be sent to an Atoll in the south Pacific where they can play Dungeons and Dragons for the rest of their natural lives.
Rusty Shackleford @ 363:
Once again you crack me up Rusty. Some people just don't get it.
Rusty Shackleford @ 311:
Yup, apparently some people can't grasp the fact that the 100,000+/- votes Nadir garnered in FL would have made the difference. There would not have been any need for recounts, lawsuits or any of the other bullshit that transpired in 2000.
Nader wouldn't even be an issue if the Dems were little more than Republicans Lite.
If they truly were the liberal party, if they had the courage of their convictions, if they wanted to tap into the messaging capabilities of but a few of their big dollar Hollywood backers, they would have beaten the Conservative movement into irrelevance decades ago.
But they didn't.
And they didn't because the Democrats are little money grubbing weasels that serve the interests of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, just like the Republicans.
America is failing, and failing utterly, not just because of greed and sins of the Bushes and Reagan and the GOP, but because of the sins of the Clintons and Carter and Dems as well.
BDM @ 305:
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Now, can we turn back the clock 167 years? No, of course not.
I think its one thing to start a new party - I thought Perot might have actually been on to something a few years back, but his lame-ass party disintegrated without him as a candidate, so it wasn't really a party, was it?
Now if Nadar could form or join a party, work within an aparatus, help elect candidates at the state and federal level, and build up, over time, a proper third party, I would be all for it. I would vote for a new party candidate in local and state elections, if the candidate was compelling. That's how you build a party in 50 states and eventually field a candidate for president.
Everything else is just ego-candidates who sometimes, like in 2000, turn out to be spoliers. Some say Nader didnot KNOW he would be a spoiler in 2000. I think the numbers were pretty clear that the country was split close to 50/50. Why else would he have issued so many lame disclaimers warning about what was going to happen - BUT, anyone who votes for him this time, again, is a true spoiler as is Nader, esp. with his GOP money - fuck him.
abrogating authority to declare war - ankle grab
passing patriot act of treason - ankle grab
passing real id act - ankle grab
confirming alito - ankle grab
confirming mukasey - ankle grab
funding an illegal occupation - ankle grab
funding an illegal occupation again - ankle grab
funding an illegal occupation again - ankle grab
roadblocking impeachment process - ankle grab
failure to issue contempt of congress warrant - ankle grab
The democrats represent change alright, but turning another trick is not the kind of change this nation needs.
Look, to blame people for Bush because they voted for Nader in 2000 is fallicious and wrong. Hindsight is 20/20, but no one could have forseen then where we are now. It is absolutely unfair to blame them when they were used unwillingly in a coup.
However, should they repeat that same mistake in 2008, now knowing full well the consequences of that vote, then they deserve the full heaping of shit that they will be getting us into. If you have not learned anything over the past 8 years, I would ask you to please kindly move along and not vote, leave that to the folks with half a brain cell. Maybe you are feeling frustrated and down about 2000 or the choices we have, and trust me the Dems choices while not my first(second or third, Obama ranked best at fourth on my cheat sheet) pick, they certainly can be alot worse. Look across the aisle. If you are feeling sorry for yourself keep it to your self and don't fuck it up for the rest of us.
I've said it over and over, and I will keep repeating it all the way up to Nov. 5. This election is no time for sitting at home or making some "asinine" angsty teen "protest" vote. There are potentially up to FOUR Supreme Court Justice seats at stake in this thing, progressives and liberals already being down in the courts can not afford to lose any more. These are lifetime appointments, so you think the elections of 2000 and 2004 are going to haunt us for awhile, just think of how bad it will be when we repeat the whole shitty thing all over.
If you have to hold your nose to vote Dem- fine. Just keep repeating "Supreme Court Nominees" over and over, suck it up and do what is best for all of us, not just one man's ego.
I would vote for Nader, again. Here's hoping he runs. You don't honestly believe in a difference between Republicans and Democrats, do you?
underdog @ 370:
Exactly.
Like Hillary will pull us out of Iraq (for starters).
Agent Provocateur @ 371:
A-fucking-men.
Agent Provocateur @ 371:
Couldn't have said it better.
I was hoping to have fun with Ralph Nader's initials (R?N), hoping his middle name began with "u", as in RUN.
But when I went to Google, Dogpile, Altavista, etc., his middle name isn't mentioned anywhere in the results.
What is his middle name...and why does it appear to be a closely guarded secret?
el @ 374:
Say it loud and say it often: SUPREME COURT NOMINEES!!!!!!!
Hank @ 365:
If it were that easy to get banished to paradise we would ALL vote for Nader and Paul... Even LaRouche.
What do Nader supporters honestly think they're getting when they vote for him? The short answer, unfortunately, is usually "hell if I know, but he's not Hillary or McCain".
Well done, folks. I could see the point if Nader stood for anything other than his own gargantuan ego, but otherwise you're just giving a name to "none of the above".
TB @ 373:
"As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration." - from her campaign website
Or, we could have John "100 More Years in Iraq" McCain.
It's your choice.
Furthermore, Nader is offering, for the small donation of just $300, a "free" copy of Michael Moore's SiCKO?
Um, no. Nader is offering you a chance to pay $300 for a dvd you can get for $10. $290 profit for Nader for your inability to see reason. This is a prime example of why I'll never fully respect anyone who supports Ralph Nader.
Rob @ 342:
No kidding. Blame a person that got like 3% of the votes, instead of actually having a candidate worth voting for. Kerry lost in 2004. Why? Don't even have to answer why, just listen to him for 5 minutes!! Edwards campaign, whether legit or not, was populist, routing for the middleclass, which most people are. What did the Dem party do? Under the bus ya go Johnny! We don't want you. We want someone that sounds just like the Republican party, so when we lose, we can blame Nader, or Diebold, or the Supreme Court, or the Easter Bunny, or Jeebus!!!! 2000 and 2004 should not have been even close had the right candidate been chosen by the Dems to represent them to the electorate. It's a fact.
el @ 278:
ConcernedCanuck @ 382:
Hows that old song go, "cry me a river"?
Now Americans know what Nader is all about. If he does get on the ballot and people vote for him just to assure a Republican gets back in office we will see change in America. Yes the change will be something you never thought you'd ever see. The Middle East will be bombed annd we will be attacked for illegally bombing. Now don't look for help from any other country and we will finally see what the depression was as we will be in one. Don't worry those who stole from the US Treasury will do just fine. The Republicans who are rich will use their second homes as the Americans look like the idiots we are for letting it haplpen. Why would any one with a brain vote for Nader knowing he only wants to take votes. If people don't like either party just don't vote at all. I do notice how Americans are waiting for their hand out with the rebate checks. To bad we don't get as much as the Iraq people get from the Bush Administration. Cheney's doing ok he got 27 per cent profit for Halliburton Americans can be real proud of Dick, as he worked hard for 7 years for this to happen and help the shareholders.
el @ 381:
Are you seriously asserting that you don't understand the concept of donation?
That $290.00 "donation" shows just how out of touch Nader is.
With gas prices, medicine and food shooting through the roof, the $10.00 movie ticket is selling less and less.
Even the Hillary campaign (not an exploratory committee) gives one the option of a one time $10.00 donation.
I have no problem with Nader running again. He is only a threat when a candidate from the Democratic party hasn't learned their lesson. Since Nader has been blamed for Gore's loss, maybe the next candidate will think a bit more about what is currently making Nader appealing to voters who they are losing, and take the right stands to get them back. If they can't do that, then they deserve to lose. No candidate is entitaled to any vote. They have to earn it. And what's kind of sad is that Hillary Clinton's rhetoric and posturing, especially towards Barak Obama who she continues to pretend is victimizing her, is driving a scenario where Nader creates another 3rd party upset for the Democrats is she's the choice.
Think about that when your primaries happen.
ysbaddaden @ 356:
Because you can't answer the questions you attempt to make it look as if you're somehow a better commenter.
This is a WEBSITE, not Meeting of the Minds. Some of us mix jokes and commentary.
I started college in my mid twenties after I served in the Air Force with a Top Secret Clearance.
Even when I was getting my Political Science and Paralegal degree, very stuffy court officials during the day would suddenly seem to turn into Robin Williams.
Excessive dourness is often only a cover for uncertainty in one's view.
diamondmc @ 360:
Hey, at least I'll have a knife in my hand, as opposed to having one thrust in my back by a dem!
Rusty Shackleford @ 380:
I had hoped that the last eight years had bitch-slapped a little sense of reality into the happy unicorns and puppies world of self-righteous Naderites, but apparently not.
Wake the fuck up. If you want real change, you don't do it by voting for some crackpot every four years so you can say you "stuck it to the man", and immediately return to four years of whining about how unfair the process is. You do it by building a viable third party, working at the local levels, building a constituency and expanding on that base.
Blame Nader all you want for the failures of democratic candidates.
lebowski @ 386:
I understand the concept of a donation quite nicely, thank you. What you don't seem to understand is you are donating to a lost cause. Do you honestly think Nader has any chance whatsoever? $300 lost for a $10 dvd. No wonder this country is as fucked up economically as it is. Twits attempting to justify spending like this....it just astounds me.
bo @ 33:
So ? Then vote for Obama .... I will and so will thousands of others.
It is funny that seemingly Nader supporters call Hillary and Barack corporatists...look at who has funded Nader in the past.....
It is not that the Democratic party is so weak that Nader is going to sink the elections, it is the irritant factor. With absolutely no good being done, he is simply running to sate his ego.
Also, for all of you who are bashing Hillary, step back and think a bit. If she is nominated (which I doubt), she can stick it to the repubs as good as anyone else can and it will be fun to watch. She may not be the best candidate, but she sure is better than Nader.
More dems voted for Bush than for Nader in 2000 in Florida and elsewhere.
Gore couldn't even win his home state.
He was a corporate shill just like the DLC Clintons and the voters knew it. Why vote for GOPLite when you can get the real thing?
Obama shows dangerous signs of being another corporatist DLCer.
This is still a democracy, no?
This bilious response by some dems, along with their sense of royalist entitlement to my vote, is sure to make me seriously consider voting for Nader. For those who think the dems own my vote, keep up the attitude and your bought and paid for party will soon be as dead as the repubs.
Ralph, go away...
People are coming out in droves for Hillary & Obama, people that sat out the last election in 04....
Much Less than half of the country even voted last time....
All a Nader or Bloomberg run would do is make the Dem/GOP race tighter....
Unfortunately when its tighter, we've all seen what for-profit (GOP supporting) voting system corporations do in election cycles....
Ben says about Nader: he is simply running to sate his ego
If true (and this I doubt), how is that any different from the other aspirants??????
democrats should not fear this dodo bird, discredited has-been getting into the race....
there are fewer knuckleheads taking this nader guy seriously than there are followers of paul
nader will soil his granny diapers if he faces obama in a debate, as would mccain. All this corporatists conspiracy nonsense doesn't stick to obama, and nader would finally disgrace himself off the stage for good if he got into the race this time, as obviously and unquestionably unwelcome and irrelevant as he is on the national scene.
Something tells me this thread will have the predictability of every other Nader thread in existence.
It's shaping up that way.
bo @ 4:
Nah, Rader would not garner enough votes to upset the apple cart this time.
It all boils down to this: If Ralph Nader truly cared about a building a viable third party in this country, he would have been pushing for instant runoff voting so NO ONE has to be a spoiler. Instead, he's been sitting on his hands for the last 8 years. I can only conclude then, that these "presidential runs" are about stroking his ego and not the good of the country.
JohnnyThief@19 Ralph the fool knew from day one that he had NO damn chance of winning shit! His only purpose participating in Presidential elections is EGO and obstruction.
Forgot to add to my last comment.
For those that are saying things like "Dems don't own my vote", "Dems are GOPlite", etc. I am sorry to say that you are truely misguided. Voting for Nader does not solve anything. It will ensure that the GOP will win again and we all know how it went the lat few years. It is sad, that the repubs unite behind their candidate, whoever it may be, while the democrats get their egos pumped up and vote for a spoiler, because they think they were slighted by dem candidates who wanted their vote.
I just don't get this warped logic.
Any other time in US history I would agree that there is no difference between Republicans or Democrats, but not this time with Bush&co. Yes the Dems were gutless and complicit, but the Repubs were the architects, the stage managers of these disastrous eight years. Nader's entire show is to say both parties are equally responsible and he's the alternative, but it's just not true. The people who gave the Repubs all the power to abuse government are to blame also. Where has Nader been through this shit? He's done no ground work at all. This lazy old fool pops out of nowhere claim to be able to save our desperate dumb asses. He's a total fraud who's done nothing.
The "conventional wisdom" is that a 3rd party candidate can never win. Where does the "conventional wisdom" come from? The media, of course. Who owns the media? Mostly the corporations. So the mudslinging and mocking of people willing to think outside of the corporate run Cowboys vs. Indians televised popularity contest comes the bitter reality that you all are eating right out of their hands. As long as everyone believes a 3rd party candidate can never win, you're right, it will never be so. I sense almost a rage bubbling under the surface from some of you, as if you know you're selling out on your principles and our pointing that out is deeply unsettling at some level. Believe in who you want to believe. Respect other who feel differently than you. Instead of insulting them, try to understand why they feel the way they do. Understand why many people feel a vote for Hillary Clinton is almost as bad as a vote for McCain, only for different reasons. Even if you're so blinded by the rat race that you can't even entertain such a possiblity, and you're voting on Super Tuesday, do me a favor and just vote Obama and prevent Hillary from obtaining her "deserved" nomination. It just might bring at least some of us back to the table, stop the bickering, and make Nader think twice about running. Nader himself has said so.
ysbaddaden @ 389:
Calling mike on his shit flinging chimpiness is excessive dourness? Hmm, that means because 'this is a website' with no 'meeting of the mids,' your support his moronic substance free rantings.
Then, ironically, you accuse me of not being able to answer a question. What question are you alleging I can't answer?
titus @ 391:
You're right. We should all believe Ralph "I Won't Campaign in Contested States" Nader.
But the answer to your unspoken question is yes. I believe that Hillary or Obama, if elected, will do what they say they plan to do with regards to Iraq. I also believe McCain is sincere about HIS plan. Which is one reason why I will vote for Hillary or Obama in November.
Andotech @ 393:
I blame Nader for the ignorance of his supporters.
"Hey guys! I'm going to be a rebel! Fuck 'The Man.' I'm voting for a nonviable candidate who takes money from the very people I despise! Go me! Oh, and fuck the establishment, even though I support its continuing existence by leaving my brain at home on voting day."
Sorry if I don't share your optimism. I base my conclusions on reality, what I can see and prove. Not dreams and especially not delusions of grandeur.
To quote Steve Gilliard (RIP)
GREEN party =
Get
Republicans
Elected
Every
November
397 lebowski Says
ysbaddaden @ 356:
There are two question in the section. You even tagged that comment number. But you did not answer.
Technically, this whole thread is a non sequitur, since it is as much about Ralphie's announcement as it is his funding (a semi-disguised publican group). In an odd way people are speculating what the candidates will or won't do once elected, based only on speculation.
So far no one has given a reason to vote for Nader other than stick it to the man.
That's an immature way of voting.
el @ 394:
The sense of your first comment is obvious and explicit.
Nader might not win, but he can scare the dem to coming back a little to the left when they see that people aren't willing to tolerate their corporate DLC GOPLite bullshit anymore.
Chris @ 396:
No man, the bubbling rage you sense is frustration. Frustration that poeple who have done nothing, including Nader, to form and sustain a viable third party show up at the 11th hour and say vote for me! He has had 8 years to do something and has done nothing. I have asked this question more than once on this thread and have yet to receive and answer:
If you are voting for Nader tell me what you have done to form, grow and sustain a thrid party? Is there an elected official in your state, county or hometown? Have you donated time and/or money to a third party candidate in a local/state race?
If not, then why now? Why at the critical moment are you suddenly going to decide "you know, I think I am a third party person" and " why not vote for that guy who only shows up every 4 years, does nothing in between to sustain a third party and has never held an elected office"? Yup, that's the guy for me!
It's so frustrating that it took me three tries to type frustrating.
Fanon @ 403:
One word: Billary.
Chris @ 404:
What about her is so horrible that you would rather see McCain elected?
Fanon @ 377:
SUPREME COURT NOMINEES!!!!!!!
If Billary wins, than damn it all I'll feel like I've been reduced to a one-issue vote, but it sure as hell is an important one. Make no mistake about it, either, it is just as important an issue to the people voting on the other side of the ticket. Ever see the documentary Jesus Camp? Heard of Jose Padilla? Remember Florida 2000?
We need to be the checks and balances to their cons and bullshit.
Whenever I see the word Billary I always feel bilious.
Tom (Not Tom) @ 379:
Ditto. Nothing is gained by voting for Nader.
He's the candidate of the thoroughly disgusted. He speaks to the frustration a lot of us feel.
But disgust and frustration must be tempered with pragmatism.
He has the right to run. No one should tell him he shouldn't.
We have the right to go into our polling places and use our brains.
Chris @ 404:
That's such a cop out. Now you know why people are frustrated. So, you don't really believe in the prinicple of a third party, you just don't want to vote for Hillary? (Who, by the way, hasn't been nominated yet. I, for one, don't believe she will be, either).
Again, now you know why people are frustrated.
Left&Left @ 16:
you, sir, are very stupid and ignorant
Fanon-where in the constitution does it state we must vote by party?
Nowhere. You're whole attitude is completely absurd. I'll vote for whatever candidate represents my views. Party should have nothing to do with it. This whole attitude of partisan voting is why this country is fucked up. And the anti-democratic sentiments of most of the people posting here makes abandoning the Democratic party an easy choice.
Sorry, but I'll vote for Nader because he represents my values. If the Dem's want to get my vote they'll need to earn it. Sadly, they do nothing to court progressives, then whine because we don't vote for them.
Where was Nader during the abuses of the NSL system, the secret prisons, the torture, the illegal wire tapping, the data base sweeping, propaganda for war rationale, Haliburton, Diebold and et al?
We heard nary a peep, and now he has all the answers?
Juba @ 411:
Nader doesn't even have a platform yet, but you'll vote for him.
You're very enlightened. Not like us stupid partisans whose candidates actually have announced positions.
I know I'll be getting a lot of heat for this one, but I'm praying to the gods that he kicks the bucket before jumping in this race.
"We need to be the checks and balances to their cons and bullshit."
There's a slogan.
It's about eight years too late, and about as sincere as a promise from Harry Reid, but hey, if you're dreamin, dream big.
ysbaddaden @ 412:
Where was the democratic party?
All you idiots whining and bitching about a possible Nader run for president are neither Democrats nor do you deserve a democracy!
Nader is just doing a Liebermann.
Nobody cares but...
Nader would not be in the picture if we had candidates who cared about
ending the war in Iraq:
Nader wouldn't be in the picture if we had candidates who had stood up against the Patriot Act.
Nader wouldn't be in the picture if we had candidates who actively opposed corporate domination of our lives.
But we don't.
All we have is Romney, Obama, Clinton and McCain to choose from.
These folks are one and the same.
Just a different photo on the same package of corn flakes.
John @ 417:
Funny how that works. We don't have one anyway.
Rusty Shackleford @ 413:
What platform is that? Where does Obama/Hillary stand on health care? Education? Israel? NAFTA? Drug War? Environment?
I know where Nader stands on all these issues. All you'll find from the Dem's is empty platitudes about change.
RedRocker @ 414:
you ought to go to hell for that one.
Nader has done more for the public good than any president ever has, or Billary and Hussein might.
Juba @ 416:
Trying to work the system, but they lack the numbers so have to make deals with the other side, and even then not have enough numbers to overcome vetos. That's why they need our votes. So deal making and unbreakable vetoes can become a thing of the past.
But if an entire party can't get the results they want how can some guy who just wonders in late with no party at all, at least with any kind of power federally, state or local, do what entire PARTIES couldn't do?
Anthology @ 419:
Really? One and the same? Obama would have all troops withdrawn from Iraq in 16 months. Hillary would start withdrawing within 60 days. McCain predicts staying in Iraq for 100 more years. Romney apparently has no plans for Iraq at all. Oh, except "double Gitmo."
If you actually think they're all the same, I'm not too worried about you even finding your polling place, let alone voting for Nader.
Just like Nader, you clowns are a waste of time. This is 2000 revisited. A bunch of self righteous losers trying to be "contrary" voting against their own best interests to somehow feel intellectual. How sad. And you fools call Democrats "Republican lite". Fight the cause by helping Repubs. Whatever noble intent you may have, it hurts the Dems and aids the Repubs.
Juba @ 416:
Exactly what I was going to ask.
Answer: they were enabling it all.
Why should we reward these spineless doormats?
Juba @ 421:
No, they actually have reasonably detailed plans (considering that the plans are prospective). You can read about them on their campaign websites.
All I saw on Nader's website was links to Common Dreams and a plea for you to send him $300. No specifics about anything.
Juba @ 421:
Where does Nadaer stand on the issue of taking money from wealthy Republicans?
SFGate, July 9, 2004:
Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1, 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show.
Juba @ 411:
Huh? No one said anything about voting by party. I just called bullshit on a 'candidate' who has done nothing in 8 years except show up and say vote for me. He has done nothing in 8 years to promote, grow or sustain a viable third party. Prove to me that I am wrong.
You are free to vote for whomever you want.
Nader supports your values?? Tell me how. Tell me what those 'values' are. Tell me what he has done in the last eight years to support your values.
Left&Left @ 425:
Screw the dems.
Screw the repubs.
Vote for the country not your party.
The people that blame Ralph Nader for the 2000 fiasco should remember the phrase, " The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves." If Hillary Clinton is the nominee then Nader should definitely run as a third party candidate. Go Ralph!
Left&Left @ 46:
That's opposed to EGO & PROFIT?
Nadar seemed like a good choice in the past... but before Bush, no one thought a president could screw up as much as he did. But he did screw up... I'm not looking for the best person at the end.. I'm looking for the most functioning one.
I don't think Ron Paul is that functional.. but he's honest.. the other people on the republician side... I'm just not going to vote for Nadar. The change he wants involves Congress.. and let's admit he's not that popular.
A lot of Dems hate Ralph because of Florida 2000.
But the voting there was rigged.
In the solid blue states, a vote for Nader is simply a harmless protest.
bo @ 41:
Bo, the other candidates have actively been jockeying and working hard towards their electoral campaigns. Yes, they do have egos but have other qualities such as trying to do something against the current administration.
What has Nader done in the last 8 years? Not a peep from him. But now that the election season is here, he wants to jump in. For what?
Ben wrote that voting for Nader will 'It will ensure that the GOP will win again'.
You're wrong, the nomination of hillary will be hand the election to the republicans.
People, people... all politicians are crooked lying corporate whores. Its silly to argue who is more 'corporate'. It's like arguing which fish are more wet.
bo @ 53:
bo, you're right....
but that's why there is no chance in hell clinton will win the nomination......will never happen
and obama could win again nader and bloomberg and mccain, all at once....
BDM @ 17:
Hae you been asleep for 50 years? Close eclections can be decided even where the winner of the popular loses the election. It all depends wshere that 4% is.
I think Shaw has the most valid point.. If this guy was pushing for a third party.... He would be doing work regarding it. He would be campaigning and spreading the word.. instead of popping up in the middle when most people are already decided.
Ron Paul really isn't a republican.. but damnit, he's on their side, and I wouldn't mind him as a president. Nadar is too polarized to be apart of the process.
ben#47:
Said with no irony or sense of your own arrogance. Clinton killed as many or more Iraqis than Bush has. What exactly will electing another corporatist accomplish? Other than more of the same? Yes, Nader probably has little chance of winning, but his candidacy could pull the dem nominee, kicking and screaming, a little to the left. Without such a demonstration of grassroots support for moving left, the whoever the dem nominee is will naturally gravitate to the right where the corporate dollars are.
bo @ 53:
Bo, we can agree to disagree. These threads are not indicative of anything. Hillary has enough support (and republicn tiredness) to garner enough vote to win the election, if nominated.
People who think that nominating Hillary is giving the republicans a chance to win are buying into the right wing talking points. The Clintons may not be the ideal people, but never underestimate them.
Personally, I will vote for any nominee that the democratic party nominates. I do not have any problms with either Hillary or Obama. They both have their weaknesses and strengths, and either of them can kick republican butt.
Anyone who follows the rules should have the right to run for general election of this country if he or she chooses to do so. Most of you have been brainwashed into thinking that only democrats and republicans can run for president. Where does it say that in the Constitution? And as others have pointed out, he only plans to run if there is no viable populist alternative. Edwards is out, thus he is no exploring. He has said he'll definitely run if Hillary gets the nomination (and I'll support him in that endeavor; I have no other choice). He's also said that he may still refrain from running if Obama is nominated, but would need to examine / possibly meet with him in person in order to make that determination. If the democrats nominate Hillary, they have no one to blame but themselves.
myskylark @ 56:
there will not be a close election
if clinton wins the nom, republicans win hands down, they'll trounce us
if obama gets the nom, he could beat anyone, hands down.....and nader could do his inarticulate and incoherent best to spoil the election, but its impact will be as hollow as his rhetoric, cause obama will trounce
If Nader runs maybe i will vote after all.
xoites defends Constitution @ 62:
xoites-- what about daffy duck....or maybe you'd prefer david duke....there are other more flamboyant ways to piss on the country and waste your vote
My guess is that faux backed a truckload of cash up to nader's house and said "Wanna be on tv?".
They get 'exclusive' access and something to scream about 24/7. Controversy makes ratings. It also throws a wrench into the mix that will allow the reslugs to further muddy the waters and cheat themselves a victory claiming nader's entry into the race made all the difference.
Ok I'm just pulling this out of my head but one wonders how close to the truth it is.
Ralph Nader - never elected to any public office, and now he wants to be president.
He's like a talentless, deluded American Idol contestant. "Gee, I sing great in front of my bedroom mirror! I deserve to be a star immediately, without working my way up or paying any dues! Me me me me me me me ME!"
Maybe Russ Feingold could be persuaded to run as a third party candidate.
Judicial Watch is a right wing group with a right wing agenda.
Ben wrote: People who think that nominating Hillary is giving the republicans a chance to win are buying into the right wing talking points.
Nope not at all. Every friend of liberal persuasion that I speak with will not vote for Hillary.
Add the disaffected liberals to the many people sitting on the fence that probably find Hillary as odious as I do and well....it's pretty easy to figure out. She's unelectable and the sooner the dems figure it out, the quicker they maybe able to salvage the situation.
Gore/Nader 2008
"Change NOW"
xoites defends Constitution @ 66:
feingold will support obama....so when he does, please get on board.....i would agree, that feingold is in a class by himself, way above all these candidates and spoilers, but he'll never run.
he will be supporting obama though
Ian McGarrett @ 67:
Ahhhh, of course. Any criticism of the saintly democrats cannot but come from right wing advocates or Fox News.
Get real.
ysbaddaden @ 423:
No, they were caving in. They were complicate. In fact many Dem's voted for the Patriot Act, funding Iraq war, confirmed Mucasy, et. al. They also refuse to hold Bush accountable. They are ineffective, spineless enablers.
Juba @ 412:
You're a progressive and feel uncourted by the dems. What have YOU done to create, grow and sustain a viable third party option? I have yet to find a Nader supporter, yet, who has helped a third party candidate get elected at the state or local level. Hell, I've yet to find one who even made a donation. I'm not saying people don't, just that I haven't met one yet.
Left&Left @ 426:
Very persuasive. No, really, very persuasive.
John @ 423:
Nice racial slur at the end of that one.
Andotech @ 394:
I don't blame Nader, I blame the idiots who think that voting once every four years will solve anything.
Tom (Not Tom) @ 436:
If it pulls the dem nominee to the left, even if only kicking and screaming, and away from the rightist corporate DLC platform then I'd say it accomplishes a hell of a lot.
Login or Register to post comments.