MTP: Nader Throws His Hat In The Ring
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Bill)
It's official:
RUSSERT: Will you run for president as an Independent in 2008?
NADER: Let me put it in context, to make it a little more palatable to people who have closed minds. 24% of the American people are satisfied with the state of the country, according to Gallup. That’s about the lowest ranking ever. 61% think both major parties are failing. And according to Frank Luntz’s poll, the Republican, 80% will consider voting for an independent this year. Now you take that framework, of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized, disrespected and you go from Iraq to Palestine to Israel. From Enron to Wall Street. From Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts, getting a decent energy bill through and you have to ask yourself, as a citizen, should we elaborate the issues that the two are not talking about? And the…all the candidates, McCain, Obama and Clinton, are against single-payer health insurance. Full Medicare for all. I’m for it. As well as millions of Americans and 59% of physicians in a forthcoming poll this April. People don’t like Pentagon waste, the bloated military budget, all of the reports in the press and the GAO reports. A wasteful defense is a weak defense. It takes away taxpayer money that can go to the necessities of the American people. That’s off the table, to Obama and Clinton and McCain. The issue of labor law reform: repealing the notorious Taft-Hartley act, that keeps workers who are now more defenseless than ever against corporate globalization from organizing to defend their interests. Cracking down on corporate crime. The media—the mainstream media—repeatedly indicated how trillions of dollars have been drained and fleeced and looted from millions of workers and investors who don’t have many rights these days.
And pensioners. You know, when you see the paralysis of the government, when you see Washington D.C. be corporate-occupied territory—every department agency controlled by overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists, corporate executives in high government positions—turning the government against its own people, one feels an obligation, Tim, to try to open the doorways, to try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in terms of third parties and independent candidates. To recognize historically the great issues have come in our history—against slavery, women’s rights to vote, and worker and farmer progressives, through little parties that never ran…won any national election. Dissent is the mother of assent. And in that context, I have decided to run for President.
It was a simple yes or no question, Ralph. His "context for closed minds" frankly offends me. I don't disagree with anything that he said (other than citing Frank Luntz. I mean, come on!), and I am a big believer in having viable third, fourth and even fifth parties to help break the gridlock in Washington DC, I'm even a registered third party voter. That said, I have to ask: Where have you been, Ralph? What have you done in the last eight years (and I'm willing to hold the Democrats responsible for some--but not all--of the ongoing mess, but let's lay the onus for how messed up everything is squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration) to help make third parties more viable and allow them a voice on the national stage? How is showing up more than a year into presidential politicking with just a few months left helpful to the validity of third parties?
Making independents more meaningful isn't an eleventh hour appearance on a talking head show. It takes years of sustained effort and commitment, something I haven't seen Nader do. So the question must be asked: who is this run really for?
No Nader here yet!
http://politics.charityads.org
I wonder if they will have him?
HE LOST ME WITH LUNTZ!
It's astonishing that this asshat still thinks he needs to run. The constituency he spoke to in 2000 (I'm one of them) has largely cast their lot with the Senator from Illinois. So he's wasting his time. He can't run much further to the left of Obama without just being a joke (or, a bigger joke than he currently is).
And if he was trying to build that constituency's loyalty to himself, he has started MONTHS too late. Obama's ground organization is going to pound him and McCain to a pulp.
Mr. Nader, check your ego at the door, and if you can't then get the fuck out of the building.
Nader is the Corvair of American politics.
Nader has the blood of tens of thousands on his hands. He is responsible for Bush being able to steal the election. He and his followers are on another planet.
Oh god. Please no.
but he does say what many people feel.
I'm disappointed in this guy, again. As an Obama supporter, I can say that I'm cautiously more optimistic about American politics going forward than I have ever been in my lifetime. Nader sucks for trying to screw things up, again.
i used to admire nader, but not since he helped put us in this
cesspool. he is as delusional now as bush and mccain.
please crawl back in your hole and you know which one i mean..........
What a narcissistic buffoon!!!
So, what was said about Edwards, considering the fact that Nader said he WOULDN'T RUN if Edwards was nominated?
Nader announces his anti-fascist candidacy on NBC, owned by GE, a defense contractor benefiting from war.
GE, one of the handful of companies that snapped up our once-semi-fair media and turned it into a propaganda machine for the right-wing.
He had any number of avenues to announce his candidacy, and he chose a network that is part of the fascist problem in the United States.
Who and what is Nader? Why does he get a free pass to snake his way into elections every four years, without being called on the carpet for his blatant hypocrisy and lies?
Nader isn't about building viable third parties. That takes commitment and hard work.
He's about showing up every 4 years and grabbing some facetime.
Naders' ego-tripping aside, I've never bought into blaming him for 2000. There is well-documented and inarguable evidence of deliberate voter fraud upon the part of Republican operatives, in both 2000 and 2004. The whole "hanging chad" thing was a side show. The real vote fraud occurred in in the use of caging lists and such to strike potential Democratic voters from the rolls before the election even occured.
It was widespread, systematic and deliberate. And it shows the fundamental disrespect for our own democracy that is at the core of conservatism.
I agree with you, Ralph.
DUMBOCRATS are closed-minded media-driven cattle.
Ralph Nader, ‘Unsafe at Any Age’
"Making independents more meaningful isn’t an eleventh hour appearance on a talking head show. It takes years of sustained effort and commitment, something I haven’t seen Nader do."
That's such an excellent point, and one that I hadn't thought of until now. Nicole, you do our bay area proud.
I'd like to throw his head in the ring.
First, I apologize for the cross post. I wonder if Ralph this year will be able to muster the same financial support from previous donors. From the S.F. Chronicle, 7/9/2004: “Among those who have given recently to Nader are Houston businessman Nijad Fares, who donated $200,000 to President Bush’s 2000 inaugural committee; Richard J. Egan, the former ambassador to Ireland, and his wife, Pamela, who have raised more than $300,000 for Bush; Michigan developer Ghassan Saab, who has given $30,000 to the RNC since 2001; and frozen food magnate Jeno Paulucci, and his wife, Lois, who have donated $150,000 to GOP causes since 2000 alone.”
oh, ralph. your time has passed. we believed in you in 2000, especially when it seemed the worst we could realistically get instead would be gore. how wrong we were.
OK, remember 2000? With no Nader we have Gore as President, even with Katherine Harris et al.
Imagine a world without George Bush as President.
Nader could spoil the democratic bid again.
Let's eliminate Nader before he can do damage.
SAY NO TO NADER
http://www.nader.org/
I used to respect this guy. Now, he brings up the same level of rage as Dick Cheney when I hear the name Ralph Nader. WHAT A DESPICABLE HUMAN BEING.
kitebro @ 5:
once again someone ignores the facts:
1) Nader has every right to run
2) people have a right to vote for whomever they choose
3) Scalia overruled the recount
4) Al Gore could have appealed it but did not under advice of carville and co.
2000 is NOT nader's fault.
Take it up with:
Scalia, who should have recused himself because his son was a bush operative
Diebold, hackable to this day.
the Fla St. Police,
the Florida Sec of State
the fla Attorney General
the Fla Gov
the people who blocked access to the polls
the fucking hanging chads.
the democratic party, who keep LIEberman, Harold Ford and James Carville in their fold
Note to Time Magazine, for your next Person of the Year issue find the 3 people who voted for Nader in 2008 and let them share the cover. Perhaps a one word caption for each like "Blind", "Deaf", and "Dumb".
Go for it, Ralph! There's two votes in this household for you.
"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form."
Truer words were never spoken.
NO, not again! He helped hand Bush the "elections" in 2000 and 2004. Now he's complaining about Bush and the Democrats!?
Jesus! Another loser candidate. And they wonder why I won't vote for Prez this year. I need a long 10 month nap. Or a long drug induced bender.Please do not put a firearm withen arms reach of Me-I am not responsible for my actions.
Ralph has had his day, god bless him. Now he's jumped the shark and he's heading into the Lyndon Larouche wilderness. I'm sure he'll get plenty of republican money, but I don't think he'll move enough votes in any direction to matter.
Most of the people who in the last couple of elections stuck their heads up their asses and shouted "There's No Difference!" have finally figured out that there is a HELL of a difference and won't make the same mistake again.
Ralph will get a vanishingly small percentage of the vote and people will probably throw rocks at anyone foolish enough to campaign for him in public.
I'm annoyed by this, but just can't bring myself to be terribly worried. I just don't believe it's going to be close enough for him to make a difference this election.
Ranchero @ 16:
Ditto.
Nader is an ass. What the hell? Why is he doing this? Didn't he learn anything from 2000? The repugs are trying to chip away at our base. If you vote for Nader this time around you need to be drawn and quartered.
Lollimom @ 12:
Don't you love this Old Fools pitch of being the alternative to The "System"?
The bad thing about Nader running is that after Clinton or Obama gets BLOWN OUT in November like I have been saying they would for the past 2 years, DUMBOCRATS will blame the loss on Nader, and therefore, still not learn their lesson, that Clinton and Obama were always guaranteed losers, just like Dean and Kerry were in 2004.
Should have gone with Edwards, FOOLS, considering the fact that the GOP strategists didn't think they could beat Edwards, but were perfectly fine with Dean, Kerry, Clinton, or Obama being nominated.
Keep giving the GOP what they want, and keep getting locked out of the White House, idiots.
Yawn
... so in order to save democracy, we can't allow any one to run for president unless he or she tickles our fancy.
I don't agree with the guy, but I believe one of the paramount of a democracy is that anyone should be free to run for any office. But it takes a special set of balls for any Dem to blame this poor old fool for the past 8 years.
As long as Dems continue to use a old jackass as their scape goat, nothing will change. Esp. since it seems that some Dems all they have to offer is insults and bully attitudes to anyone who does not toe in their party line. How progressive.
I had respect for this guy running the first time around and do not put blame on him for Gore loosing in 2000. There were much greater powers at work that made that happen. But now is not the time and never will be for him. He had his chance. The least he could do is endorse a candidate rather than throw his hat in the mix and further make the people who had respect for him before hate him further as a person.
Question...Will he be marginalized just as much or even more than Dennis Kucinich was by the media or will the media run stories on him as if he even has a chance just to ruin Obamas or Hiliary's chances?
I love Ralph. He best represents what we all want, yet somehow everyone has been convinced they need to vote for the Great Equivocators. Fine. You'll get a fraction of what is right with things the way they are-if anything at all.
Mark this:
We Won't get single payer health care (Medicare for all), and what does end up in place will be expensive and bloated, and nearly impossible to fix or replace, once it's in place.
We won't leave Iraq-Not quickly, not thoroughly.
We'll keep sucking off the right wing of the Israeli govt
Education and health care will be thrown over in favour of the military budget
Corrupt arseholes, never-ending hearings into their corruption, with little or no resolution.
Further weakening of the infrastructure
Punitive actions against countries who disagree with the US
And on and on. In other words, after the election, NO MATTER WHO wins it-Business as usual.
justabill @ 357:
The 9-11 Conspiracy forum is over on Propaganda Matrix........
Mike Politik @ 302:
+1! Go Ralph!
The Dude @ 354:
I was just trying to follow you down the "Kucinich sued to get in the debates" road that you started down.
My point still stands. Put Nader on a stage with Hillary or Obama. He'll be Nixon to either of their Kennedy. I'd love for them to do it, but the fact is at this point he's probably not worth their time.
Adamkun @ 355:
BWHAHAHA.....blaming Nader for his 2.7% of the vote in Florida? You are missing the point.....HOW DOES ONE LOSE A STATE LIKE FLORIDA TO A RETARD LIKE BUSH? It should HAVE NEVER BEEN CLOSE. Gore/Lieberman is why the Florida election was close....not Nader.
Divide and conquer is an ancient battle strategy.
Also, Nadar basically admits that he steals left wing voters by ticking off a list of left wing issues right there in that clip.
US elections are about winning the battle for the lesser of two evils. Idealists must not lose sight of that this time around!
Rusty Shackleford @ 364:
No you point never held any water. We have never seen Hillary and/or Obama debate Nader or any non-mainstream candidate, so we should not speculate about things that haven't happened, and most likely will never happen. Some people seem to care more for fairy tales than reality.
Maybe you thought that your tangential argument line was impressive. Alas, no dice...
bushflipflops @ 360:
Mike Politik @ 365:
Heck how does one lose a general election to a buffoon like Bush, twice?
And no, die hard dems, and old fart like Nader ranting is not how you lose a general election. Try again...
Go Ralph!
2A03 @ 271:
Hey, if your candidate is imploding before the convention can even make it official, you're gonna need help. These "progressives" can't sell McCain to Democrats, so they hope they can sell Nader. Nader didn't get much mindshare in 2004, but I think we'll see a lot more this cycle...the danger for them is that they could make Ralph a more viable option to McCain. Seriously, Nader is 3 years older than McCain...no way that the Corrupt Old White Man's Party nets one additional voter from Obama.
I have to wonder what GOP front group or groups are backing him financially this time?
-B
1. Where has he been for the last 8 years??
2. This is the biggest 'So What' of this election season.
3. America is over you Ralph. You have good ideas, but awful public relations. If you stop trying to be president, maybe, just maybe you'll be partially forgiven for your 2000 run.
Sam @ 368:
Yeah the imaginary primary process in his head. Dennis Kucinich argued for single payer healthcare, and ending the Iraq war, and John Edwards railed against corporate power, and their popular stances moved Obama and Clinton further to the left. At least Edwards and Kucinich are trying to move the Democratic party in a good direction, Nader is only doing this out of his own ego.
Why doesn't he run as a Democrat and move the debate like Kucinich did? Why does he show up at the last minute to be a spoiler? Why does he receive most of his money from Republicans?
Yes, all those hippie tree hugers who attend Ralph Nader functions, are indeed GOP operatives.
Talk about denial...
But it that floats your boat, by all means.
Meat @ 318:
bushflipflops @ 374:
Again, for the nth time... there is the possibility that some people are not *gasp* Democrats. I know it is hard to grasp, but it shouldn't be that hard if we lived in a real democracy.
Kucinich and Edwards are both Democrats, and god bless them for trying to better their own damn party.
The assumption that every one should work for the Dem party is what I find mighty insulting.
The Dude @ 375:
Why did most of his funding in 2004 come from Republicans?
Talk about denial...
this is absurd the abuse Nader is getting in this thread. Anyone has the right to run, period. Blaming him for dead Iraqis is absurd, Gore lost 2000 for Gore. The Dems rolled over and gave Bush his 2 wars and have faithfully voted to continue them since then. Thats where the 2 parties have been for the last 8 years. Funding and supporting wars. Nader has been writing and speaking out against the wars and bush and the dumb ass lame dems.
hurling abuse at Nader is lame. If he runs and the dems want the votes he might take from them or the indis that are itching to flee both parties, they can say and promote the same ideas he is.
dont be so fucking narrow,, shit needs to be stirred this place is super fucked up right now.
The Dude @ 377:
What don't you understand about the fact that most of Naders positions are similar to the progressive wing of the Democratic party? Why not run as a Democrat in the primary, standing a better chance of winning the nomination, and having an organized party ready to support him in the general election?
By sitting out until the last minute, taking money from Republicans, and taking votes away from Democrats, he is nothiung more than a spoiler.
The Dude @ 375:
Read this please Dude
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31...
-B
Why did you cut the clip with that innaccurate quote from Russert?
Back in 2000, I was rooting for McCauin before I was rooting for Nader. If I hadn't voted for Nader, I probably wouldn't have voted at all. I knew then that NAFTA (Clinton's idea) was crap, as Obama has supposedly found out in past few weeks.
But Nader was more of a influence in Florida than the "hanging Chad," grandmas voting for Buchanan, and African Americans being denied the right to vote?
REALLY? That's what you choose to emphasize?
I got one solution, and don't hate me because there are Democracies in the world that choose from multiple parties all the time -- instant run-off voting. Problem solved, bitching stopped.
bushflipflops @ 378:
In 2004 Nader raised, about $300,000. And $20K of those are alleged to come from GOP donors.
When did 10% become "most"?
He should have returned all those checks. Alas I fail to see the Dems returning all the donations from large business in cahoots with conservative platforms.
What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Unless we are in double-standard denial bizarro world here.
MTP: Nader Throws His Hat In The Ring
Ring throws hat back out.
I would not shed the smallest amount of sentiment should the fuckhead leave this world....
So ya think he'll get 5 or 10 votes?
REALLY? That's what you choose to emphasize?
I got one solution, and don't hate me because there are Democracies in the world that choose from multiple parties all the time -- instant run-off voting. Problem solved, bitching stopped.
Yo, E Rocks! @ 382:
Filthy Harry @ 37:
Sorry, even with the rigged election/recount, Gore would have easily won New Hampshire and Florida in 2000. The blood of a million Iraqis is on his hands as well.
Mike Politik @ 362:
There was absolutely nothing "conspiracy" about anything I wrote or anything I linked to, especially not anything to do with the idiotic truthers. Evidently you just can't deal with the fact that Nader is a complete sellout these days, and I linked to all the proof anyone would need to see just that.
I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding this, but is Nicole Belle insinuating that Obama, Clinton and McCain have less egotistical reasons and less self interest (and more benevolent reasons) in running for President than Nader? Give me a break. Nader has proved himself for a large part of his life as someone who fights for common causes just as much as these career politicians running for President.
Nader-Hater @ 388:
Would that also be true of Hillary for example. Given that she actually voted for the Iraqi war resolution?
No matter what the arguments are or the evidence to back them, there are members of the Democratic party who want to blame its failure in 2000 on Ralph Nader. There is really nothing to be afraid of in 2008 from him, and he espouses the ideas that Crooks and Liars often espouses, not to mention the rest of netroots politics; it amazes me how Ralph Nader freaks people out. As far as sustained effort goes, I love this site, but I have to say I was a young man when Ralph Nader started working on behalf of America's citizenry, and while he's no politician and often a bitter pill to swallow, one thing I'll say for him is he has not been off the mark in his critique of our political system, nor is he some Johnny come Lately blog site poster, who no one had even heard of in 2000. He's what you'd call an old school version of what folks like netroots are doing now. Get over him. Hold Obama's and Clinton's feet to the fire on Iraq--when they softsoap the realities there in their debates; hold them to the fire when instead of going after the politics of the past several decades, they trivialize the debates with either empty rhetoric or ad hominem bs. Instead of railing at Nader, isn't it up to netroots to turn the Democratic party into something better?
Brack on Ralph in Ohio today-
"8 years ago, he didn't think there was any difference between GWB and Al Gore, and now, 8 years later, it's clear he didn't know what he was talking about."
ROFL
CitizenE @ 392:
You make way too much sense...
Every one of you whiners who want to keep Nader off the ballot should be arguing for electoral reform. If you haven't been arguing for electoral reform by writing letters and supporting organizations that do, you lack standing to criticize Nader.
Dear Ralph Nader, FUCK YOU! No one except the voices in your fucking skull asked you to pull this shit! You remind me of a total has-been jock making a completely ill-advised comeback. Go to hell Ralph.
Nader in 2012!
What a jackass. Like I said in 2000, if he wants to change the Constitution so that we have proportional representation, so if the Green get 10% of the vote, they also get 10% of the seats in Congress, I'm all for him. It would, of course, require him to get off his ass and do something between elections. But he's counting on people to dumb to realize that our electoral system makes 3rd parties pointless. He was outraged this morning that we don't have more parties, like Europe. Ralph understands he's talking about a different system of gov't, he's betting a good chunk of the country slept through grade school civics.
And f**k sake, 2000 wasn't his fault? Is politics about making voters feel like good people, or is it an attempt to accomplish some particular goals? Someone please ask him what his run in 2000 did to further his goals?
CoIntelPro @ 22:
In response, points 1 and 2 while correct, don't negate the argument that Nader cost Gore the election. And points 3 and 4 could have been moot, had Gore perhaps picked up some electoral votes in another state that he lost to Bush because of votes to Nader. (Note: I don't know the numbers on 2000 so that last statement is supposition, not fact.)
Though of course you are correct that the rest of the items listed are also responsible.
Why this egomaniac dares to compare the United States to the parliamentary systems of Europe to argue for his candadicy and the need for ideas and other choice is by its very nature self defeating.
Hey Ralph, we 'aint Europe. The guy that gets 30-40 % in multi party elections wins! No coalition building to 50% required. Just go away.
That said, he gets .1% of the total vote or less this year.
If Nader had spent any time in the last eight years building a viable third party, instead of throwing Hail-Mary passes and accepting dirty cash and support from Republicans and reichwing orgs, them maybe I’d have more respect for him. As it is, he deserves no respect whatsoever for a number of reasons.
"GOP donors funding Nader Bush supporters give independent’s bid a financial lift"
"Nader defends GOP cash Candidate says he’s keeping money"
"Nader’s Republican pipe dream"
Look at the groups that Nader gets his support from: Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, a corporate front funded by Exxon, Hertz Corp., Philip Morris, Amoco, Bell Atlantic, Citibank, General Electric and General Motors and so on.
more: Organized Crime Ring: Killer Koch’s Citizens for a Sound Economy - (Nader's buddies)
Let's face it. Nader doesn't give a rat's ass about being viable or building a third party. This is just another way he can bleed the corporations and Republicans some more because he knows they will spend millions supporting his candidacy in the hopes he will be a spoiler to the Democrats, and that is all he has ever really cared about.
L.A. Confidential @ 30:
NO, I don't.
This prick needed NBC like I need a neo-con president. He could have announced it on his website alone, and it would have made headlines instantly.
It made me cringe to hear his anti-corporate RHETORIC on a corporate network owned by GE!
Jeezuz, how stupid does he think we are?
The issue of labor law reform: repealing the notorious Taft-Hartley act, that keeps workers who are now more defenseless than ever against corporate globalization from organizing to defend their interests.
Could someone please explain to me how exactly workers organizing would protect them from outsourcing? I mean I know we all like to think of things in simpler terms than they actually are, but come on. Workers organizing and asking for better pay and benefits is supposed to make corporations less likely to ship their jobs elsewhere? In what fairy tail land does that make any sense at all?
Message to Ralph Nader
Actually...
Nader HAS been working hard for third party candidates and working tirelessly to spur dialogue about the corporate machine.
You can dislike him and choose not to vote for him, but to say he has been doing nothing for 8 years is a joke. Why not do a little research before you sound off?
So everyone who disagrees with Nader is one of the "closed minds". How fucking condescending.
Nader has become the Harold Stassen of the progressive movement. Pathetic.
Nader has been completely silent for the last 7 years of the Bush regime. His thesis that there is no difference between the Democratic Party which he overgeneralizes as being in the pocket of big business, is overwrought and inaccurate. To make this point he must willfully ignore the Democrats who have stood up to the Bush regime on every issue from trade to taxes to torture, war and peace and the environment. He also willfully avoids talking about how Supreme Court appointments affect the very issues he claims to care about. With a Supreme Court stacked with far right anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-regulation, anti-civil rights and liberties zealots from the Federalist Society every single topic he proclaims to care about will be null and void for the rest of our lifetimes. Any Nader supporter who doesn't factor this into their decision to allow McCain to become the next President is tragically and profoundly naive.
Can Nader make the point that Gore would have unsigned Kyoto, appointed right wingers to the Supreme Court, invaded Iraq? The list goes on.
The notion that third parties are a magic bullet to cure corruption and mitigate corporate influence is sheer nonsense. What magical force will prevent any third party or politician from becoming corrupted? They will need to rely on the same sources of financing to be competitive as any other politician.
No one says 2000 was Nader's fault. Only that he played a big part in it. It is likely, very likely, that without this megalomaniac, bad joke, BBF of George W we would have had seven years of Gore rather than seven years of the worst period this country has seen.
The Nader fantasy: He stands as a monument to progresive ideals and inters the race. McCain wins the election and everything goes further and further into the shitter. Everyone cries out "OH WHY DIDN'T WE VOTE FOR NATER!!" 2012 comes around and everyone is on their knees begging OH PLEASE let us vote for you this time. Ralph Nader stands up, chin held high, YES he says I will save this once great nation. The people of a greatful nation cheer.
Also, that's a dumb argument about Nader making a last-minute appearance, when he's been shut out of the MSM as much as Kucinich.
An Other Greek @ 332:
"Let’s see-”…masturbating Naderbots…” “…about jobs blah blah that you wrote…” And I’m the specious one out of the two of us? The derailer? I don’t think so.
As for your invite to discuss-you’ve already proven you want pitch mud and call names and the “…about jobs blah blah that you wrote…” pretty much demonstrates your interest in the issues and skills in discussion. I’ll pass."
Where am I claiming victim hood? Let's see-"masturbating Naderbots" "useful idiots" "Naderbots" "Narcissistic left" "Meow, miss_kitty" all your words. Hells bells. I don't argue with name callers and people who argue against the very thing they are doing. Nor do I argue with people who work against their own best interests.. That's all. You have weak arguments and an undisciplined mind. If you want to know who Mr Nader works for, do the work yourself. I'm not your research fellow.
Get a grip. And Reread your posts. Pretend someone is directing the very words at you. You wouldn't feel like engaging them in any meaningful dialogue. Why? Because it's obvious you want to condescend and score points-a bad tactic if you are serious about discussing issues. As for "poor debate tactic[s]"-well, you should know. You've employed several in each post you've made on this thread.
Sitemonitor, I don't mean to be a rat but you delete my comment when I only expressed anger in this senile jerk Nader and you print comment#335 that basically threatens the old fool's sorry life. A bit of inconsistency, don't you think?
[There is a very angry post of yours I left up "Dear Ralph Nader, FUCK YOU! No one except the voices in your fucking skull asked you to pull this shit! You remind me of a total has-been jock making a completely ill-advised comeback. Go to hell Ralph."...If a post threatens to physically harm someone, when we see it, or it is brought to our attention, we'll remove the offending post(s).
Nate_O @ 396:
this is precisely the problem with this whole thread.
Naderbots have a rational disconnect, just read above.
Instead of advocating for electoral reform so that THEN Nader can run, legitimately, as a 3rd party candidate in a representational system, and not as a spoiler,
the genius above advocates that we should let Nader run, effectively as a SPOILER and then deal with electoral reform, when it is too late to:
--make any sense of a Nader run,
--and again deliver a damaging advantage to the right
naderbots!
Look,
Unless we - - - FIRST change our electoral system system, which is NOT representative,
Nader will be a SPOILER, no matter how agreeable his stated policies sound to you.
First things first!
Why
is
that
so
hard
to
understand
?
?
?
Again, I concede that there are many posters here that cannot wrap their mind around this,
but I will ACCUSE Nader of perfectly understanding the vanity of this whole exercise,
so,
I ask again:
Who does Nader really work for???
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This thread has exposed the anti-democratic tendencies of the Democratic faithful.
But remember, you don't get to cry when your new corporate democratic president keeps us in Iraq and continues to let the CIA run around the world creating more terrorists. And don't bitch when they give the insurance and pharmaceutical industries welfare so all of us can have an HMO to deny us decent health-care.
My prediction is this-corporate Dem wins in November-gets blamed for economy, drags ass getting out of Iraq-Idiotic Americans get pissed and give us a Republican congress, followed by 8 years Jeb Bush.
Lucky for me, I'll be in Europe by then, living in a civilized society. But you'll have just what you deserve-flaccid mediocrity followed by more soft-porn fascism-the two sides of the American two party system.
When all along you could have voted for someone who represents progressive ideals you supposedly believe in, and could actually begin to dig America out of its hole.
But instead you play it safe and elect a corporate shill, because you're a pragmatic party loyalist. You'll get the government you deserve.
Now I'll take my leave from C and L, and leave you to your absurd Democratic party cheerleading. I'll go elsewhere for my progressive news.
nice place to end the clip nicole -- you can hear mr. naders reply at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23321310#23320410
Left&Left @ 398:
I believe that comment went bye bye already. It was waaaaay out of line. Anyone who writes something like about anyone shouldn't be surprised when they get a visit from law enforcement.
miss_kitty @ 285 and 241,
and now 397.
That makes 3 (!) posts in which you concern yourself with style as content, rather then the issue stated in the post.
3 times.
fyi, my sweet pussy, it's about what the AUTHOR of the thread asks.
let's move beyond your precious issue of style, shall we?
in Nicole Belle's words: "Making independents more meaningful isn’t an eleventh hour appearance on a talking head show. It takes years of sustained effort and commitment, something I haven’t seen Nader do. So the question must be asked: who is this run really for? (emphasis mine)
and I also have kept asking,
Who does Nader really work for???
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It's a long interview. W e only put up so much...
I just don't get it. Does Nader have some craving for attention that cannot be satisfied by other means? Does he have candidacy-related OCD? Does he want to tarnish his reputation even more than he did (with the aid of the felonious five) in 2000?
Why is he running again?
There are many interesting comments above, but Framecop at #172 makes the most sense for me. Clearly it is not just a coincidence that Nader has emerged. Framecop's analysis that the Dems always fuck things up every election, even when presented a win on a silver platter, by simply following media promotion. The MSM = Corporatists=mostly neocons= They ignored Edwards who presented the most threat against McCain, and that's why Edwards dropped out. It makes perfect sense that given the abyss into which this country has fallen, the Dems SHOULD have a landslide in November, regardless of Nader, who is there only to get the blame for the Democratic defeat in November, distracting the real reason why the Republicans will win: DIEBOLD. It explains Nader, Edward's and this "strategy" has Rove painted all over it. It's brilliant and I can see it working. The democrats will fuck things up once again despite their silver platter. Nader is a distraction. All we can do is vote en masse for Obama and hope Diebold is overwhelmed. Otherwise President McCain will occupy the White House.
All together now.....1, 2, 3, fuck Nader
Message to Ralph Nader:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIFEceopAUI
seriously
Maybe Nader believes in things that Democrats don't, and that's why you're all so vicious and unrelenting. I mean it must be SOMEthing that turns you all into monsters. WHat could it be? The monster in the mirror?
An Other Greek @ 403:
Uh-I have explained why I won't discuss issues with you. It's too bad that in addition to generalised abuse and epithets, you now resort to personal attacks. It's very obvious that since you aren't reading my posts to you for understanding, you'll hardly care what I have to say about Nader in an adult discussion of the issues. I'm not into ad hominem attack style arguments. And you're all about it. And Like I said before, if you really wonder who Nader works for, look it up. I think I can safely assume you have a computer and access to the internet. There's plenty on Nader's work, and just for whom he is doing it. Be your own dog's body. It's not up to the rest of us to answer your questions. I already said that though, and you obviously didn't read it then.
Style isn't my issue, BTW. It's yours.
Republicans paid for his ticket the last two times and you can bet that the same bunch is behind this. Nader needs to be tarred and feathered along with the current band of thieves in the White House and run out of Washington on a flatbed railcar.
The funny part was when Russert asked him if we support Obama or McCain.
Nader looked at him Like"hello what the hell do you think I'm doing here?"
peace, jason
ugh!
- - - - - - - -
CoIntelPro @ 7:
So what? He can still say it without being an asinine, GOP-aiding jerk! He gets news coverage each and every time he opens his mouth. He can't win the election; he can only throw a monkey wrench into it. He needs to get a grip on reality.
An Other Greek @ 413:
Hmmm. Thoughtful, well reasoned, erudite, insightful. Not. Any wonder I have no interest in what you have to say, other than to use it as a tool to niggle you to death?
:D
justabill @ 408:
- - -
no, seriously!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So where has this man been for 4 years!? He's done no organizing, testifying, sacrificing, advocacy. It's not like there hasn't been enough for him to do. Then he crawls out of his funky New York apartment and tries to ride on his old reputation. Get lost, Ralphie. You're part of the "old guard" that needs to be thrown in the dust bin with the rest of that Washington crew. You're a phoney and anybody that tosses a vote his way is genuine about changing this mess we're in.
Ever wonder how TOTALLY STUPID those 90k or so morans in Florida 2000 still feel voting for this NeoConJob enabler?
I mean voting for Ralphie Poo was 'safe' in CA cuz Gore was gonna win by 12-15 percent (which he did) but ALL pundits called Florida a dead heat. No worries - these Florida Nader voters made sure to enshrine their names in infamy. 95% of of the BS and death would not have gone down over the past 7 1/2 years if not for these POS.
Never forget - Never forgive em!
Oh yeah - laugh Nader the Malaka out of American public life!
Just ignore him. He'll go away.
Nate_O @ 393:
How the hell are we going to have election reform until we take care of business first - namely, getting control of Washington? I support your concern because it's at the root of our problems, but what kind of real progress can be made before November? First things first.
Reminder: Skip the Oscars for a bit and watch Rove get fried on CBS' "60 Minutes" tonight.
Later Nader
Wise words:
"The Democrats forfeited the right to the automatic vote of progressives, liberals, and what Paul Wellstone used to call "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" a long time ago, and there is no sign that they intend to earn it back soon. They have sold their soul to the same fat cats as the Republicans have and totally ignored their base."
Snowball @ 80:
Nader's voice should be heard. The dems excuse of not having enough votes in congress to stop Bush is a lie. I have watched Dems, considered to be left of center, vote for Bush's Supreme Court nominees, even nominate the current Attorney General, war funding,resolutions against Iran, for weakened CAFE standards, spying on americans.....always enough Dem Senators to give Bush and corporate CEO's what they want. The general public has needed the voice of Dennis Kucinach...Edwards and now Nader.
In 2000, these are the states that Gore won, despite Nader being in the race:
Maryland, Rhode Island, DC, Connecticut, Wisconsin, California, Delaware, Vermont, Washington , Maine , Iowa , Illinois , Massachusetts , Michigan , Minnesota , Hawaii , Oregon, Pennsylvania , New Jersey , New Mexico, New York
These are the states that Gore would have lost, even if he were given ALL of Nader's votes:
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, Nevada, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Kentucky, Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Indiana, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas
These are the states Gore would have won if Naderites gave him votes (amount needed):
New Hampshire (7211)
Florida (537)
But wait! Since Florida is the state that tips the scales, we can give James E. Harris's 562 votes from there to Gore, and Gore wins the presidency!
DAMN JAMES E. HARRRRRISSSSSSSS! You ruined it for all of us! You should never run again!
You guys are a barrel of laughs.
Nader can't really believe the shit he runs. If he was really concerned about change, why is running for office when he has no chance of winning? If he was serious about changing the direction this country is going, why not try to form a collation with dems and progressives? If he really cared about the issues this country face's, why take any chance at letting neocon repugs stay in office?
Let the Nader witch hunt begin.
So...
Love Me,
Love Me,
Love Me
I'm a liberal!
Asking Nader what he's been doing the last eight years seriously begs the question. What the hell did he think he was doing eight years ago? Getting W appointed was a wonderful thing for a self-promoting, onanistic jackass that believes because he thinks, the universe exists, orbiting around his umbilicus. Randy Newman has a line for this guy: Jesus, what a jerk.
I say this from personal experience of the arrogant jerk from way back in Worcester in 1969. Back then, it wasn't about getting the country out of the quagmire, it was about Mrs. Naders pride and joy be the center of attention. If full disclosure had rules, they'd include a requirement that Ralph wear one of Musharraf's old uniforms.
One thing I noticed about this post, Nicole. You cut the clip off before Nader could respond to Timmeh's accusation that the helped Bush win Florida. Now, you guys are always slamming Russert for pandering to the establishment, not asking the right questions and so on. So why on earth would you give him the last word and not allow us to hear Nader's response to this very important question? For someone like Russert who seems to have no credibility in C & L's eyes, why use him to prove your point?
secretmojo @ 426:
The election was stolen, as is now abundantly clear. NO ONE except the people who stole the election knows how many votes they ripped off from BOTH Gore and Nader.
diamondmc @ 427:
Obviously you've never read his resume.
Capitol Hill News Service
Citizen Advocacy Center
Citizens Utility Boards
Congress Accountability Project
Consumer Task Force For Automotive Issues
Corporate Accountability Research Project
Disability Rights Center
Equal Justice Foundation
Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
Georgia Legal Watch
National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
Pension Rights Center
PROD (truck safety)
Retired Professionals Action Group
The Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
1969: Center for the Study of Responsive Law
1970s: Public Interest Research Groups
1970: Center for Auto Safety
1970: Connecticut Citizen Action Group
1971: Aviation Consumer Action Project
1972: Clean Water Action Project
1972: Center for Women's Policy Studies
1980: Multinational Monitor (magazine covering multinational corporations)
1982: Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
1982: Essential Information (encourage citizen activism and do investigative journalism)
1983: Telecommunications Research and Action Center
1983: National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
1989: Princeton Project 55 (alumni public service)
1993: Appleseed Foundation (local change)
1994: Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees)
1995: Center for Insurance Research
1995: Consumer Project on Technology
1997?: Government Purchasing Project (encourage the government to purchase safe and healthy products)
1998: Center for Justice and Democracy
1998: Organization for Competitive Markets
1998: American Antitrust Institute (ensure fair competition)
1999?: Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
1999?: Commercial Alert (protect family, community, and democracy from corporations)
2000: Congressional Accountability Project (fight corruption in Congress)
2001: Citizen Works (promote NGO cooperation, build grassroots support, and start new groups)
2001: Democracy Rising (hold rallies to educate and empower citizens)
Nader gets no respect from me any more. None. This is all about Nader's giant ego, not about wanting to give people a voice or a choice. As noted above, if he really believed this little speech of his he would have spent the last eight years working on building a coalition.
I hear an embarrassing moment coming for Ralph. The younger votes he affected in 2000 see what supporting him cost their families and their lives. If he thinks he has their energy or their ear, he is very mistaken. Our world has changed, but he has not changed with it. His style reminds us of McCain, and the fact they've tried and failed for what will be the third time will create a rally around Obama the likes we've never seen. He just reinvigorated Obama's troops. This election will not be close. He just got the Dems to circle the wagon even tighter.
I am not sure which is more disturbing, Ralph Nader or John McCain. Both are up there is age and both want to see the destruction of the country. McCain will do it by following the "conservatives" into more wars and destroying the middle and lower classes. Nader will destroy the country by stealing votes from Democrats and Independents and handing the election to McCain. Thanks Ralph.
framecop @ 31:
A lot of people think that he is a paid GOP operative. But my theory is that he is a Dem paid operative, so they can use him as a scapegoat whenever they clinch defeat from the jaws of victory.
If after 8 years of this GOP administration, Dems are afraid of a 3rd party fringe element stealing their votes. I must say that they (the Dems) need to start looking at themselves in the mirror. Because, maybe just maybe, they are part of the problem. If all they have to offer is "shut the fuck up and vote for us because we are not as bad as the other ones, and if you don't vote for us the terroris... eerr the GOP win" color me unimpressed.
He has a right to run. I have a right to run faster . . . away from him and toward Obama. Nader is clearly on nothing more than an ego trip. Fuck him and the Corvair he rode in on.
I do not think that Nader is really serious about forming a 3rd, 4th, what ever national political party. Anyone who is serious about forming a true party knows you need to start at the congressional level. You need to get people elected as Representatives and as Senators. You also need to work at the state level and get as many state offices as possible if your really wanting to form a new party.
I submit for your consideration this thought: "Nader, and all the other 'leaders' of third party movement are more interested in their own position in the National Political Scene than in forming a true political party."
I would also add that given the sources of financing from the hard right and business interests that Nader has accepted, he has already been corrupted.
Yawn......
For the first time in history, there's going to be an African American and/or a woman leading the presidential ticket of a major party. One of the keys to Obama's success is he's fired up the imaginations of the Democratis Party's progressive wing and many independents.
THIS is going to be the story this election season. For Nader, it's all about his ego.
Don't worry about Nader. He'll be a minor sideshow at best.
miss_kitty @ 35:
You are reading My mind.You should profit from these powers.
Nader was given time on national TV to say ALL THAT, without an interruption from the host?
I can watch an episode of LOST faster that it took me to read all that BS.
Russert: Question number 2 - Will you charge Bush and Cheney with war crimes?
Then we'll talk. until then - go away.
snoozer @ 28:
Ralph used to have an organization and backing from progressives and enough influence in the Democratic party to make a difference and have an impact on the formation of the party platform, even up to the convention. He was truly a political force in this country. By the time Clinton rolled around with his DLC, the progressive agenda was on it's way out. Ralph, if he struggled at all against the elimination of the progressive agenda, struggled in vain.
You people are out of your Freaking minds. Nader is speaking on your behalf. I'm a democrat but can you really say that they are truly nobler than the rethugs. Nadar is right on so many things but you're all worried he's going to siphon votes away from a dem. Please if the dems can't hold their votes they don't deserve them. Don't blame Nadar for doing what a democratic process allows. I mean some of you are calling him a Cheney. You're all wacked out dems who have forgotten what a democracy means.Nicole is so wrong to start this. Stop being lemmings and letting Nicole lead you by the nose. Think for yourselves. Nadar has every right to do what he wants to do and saying he doesn't is undemocratic. What the hell happened to you all. Bush not only screwed the country but he screwed your heads too. Made you so scared that you're willing to trash democratic principles just to get who YOU want, elected.
Nader clearly has an ego the size of Texas. But I say that Nader's run here is simply symbolic. So in that regard it would be best if some people 'symbolically' vote for Nader but then cast an actual ballot for a candidate who can actually do something like Obama or [maybe] Hillary.
Noah Cross @ 46:
It is so easy to make alternative theories and what ifs.
It is also much easier than to actually look at the facts; the piss poor campaign by Al Gore who could not soundly beat a certified illiterate buffoon. The fact that Al Gore picked a moderate conservative like Lieberman. The fact that the Dems went MIA for the most part of this decade, giving the GOP all the tools they needed to enable this current cluster fuck. The fact that even after 2 disastrous and definitively not clean general elections, the Dems have not made it a priority to enact transparent elections nor any major election process overhaul. And on, and on, and on...
But I assume, it is much easier to blame and old fool. Than to look at the mirror and realize that there is a lot of things rotten in the Kingdom of the Dems too.
One wonders why Ralph hasn't been active on building a viable third party from the grassroots up? If he wanted to be effective, he'd focus his energies on building a third party by electing Congressional representatives, taking over city councils and other on the ground efforts to challenge the corporate influence from the ground up, not from the top down.
"Mr. Nader, check your ego at the door, and if you can't then get the fuck out of the building."- SlippyToad
WoW! I heard that.
How many donations will he receive from the Republicans to get 1% of the vote? I'm certain he'll just get votes by people who weren't going to vote anyway. No Democrat is going to choose to vote for Nader if it means four more years of Bush, I mean McCain in the White House.
Screw Nader! He disappears between elections and shows up to grace our presidential elections. I voted for him in 2000 and have never regretted a vote more. Go back in to hiding Nader makes me want to ralph.
CoIntelPro @ 58:
Also, remember that Mr. Gore was a founding member of the DLC too.
Mike Philco @ 59:
Ummmm I can speak for My behalf-That doesn't qualify Me to be President. So people! I speak for My behalf! Vote for ME!
The Party of Ralph running again? Color me surprised. He got .38% of the vote in 2004. BFD. The funny thing is, the Republican strategy of financing his run to split the Democrats may well backfire on them big-time. This time, he could pull a chunk of Republicans from McCain. Run, Ralph, run!
BTW, I do blame Raplh for giving us Bush in 2000. Forget Florida...look at NH. He got enough votes there to spoil NH for Gore...and if Gore had taken NH, Florida wouldn't have mattered.
The Dude @ 62:
If Nader took votes from Gore, why isn't it correct to say he cost Gore the election? To be sure a lot of things cost Gore the election Nader is one of them.
This isn't news. He is listed in California as being one of the candidates for President on both the Green and Peace & Freedom Parties.
How many electoral votes did Nader get in 2000 and 2004?
Article asks "WHY?".... where has ralph been...
... working on things most 'progressives' do NOTHING about. Voting for president and calling a congressmen once in a while is great... woo! Ralph's resume makes gandhi look lazy, however.
.... WHYNOW?... he can't run for 2 years without corporate dollars... heck, the dems sued his HOW MANY TIMES over ballot access? and the debates??? gimme a break! Perot got millions of votes and had BILLION$ and couldn't buy 30 sec ads in '96!!! This is a litmus test to see who informed progressives are, and who the 'party worshipers' are...
the DEMS sold out progressive values 30 years ago--- remember the 80's???? where were they, when ralph was 'winning' battle after battle for us? When the dems were coalescing to reagan bush policies, even allowing 'liberal' to become a dirty word?? where???
Without grass root progressivism, nothing will change for the better... you can vote for a good democrat, but party allegiance is insanity and being a fool! It is soooo sad how many people call themselves 'progressives' and want to slam ralph, just like the democrats want them to--- nowhere else to run my friends.... the game is old and the younger generations have to RELEARN the obvious yet again...
mo_dem @ 430:
I second this.
Mike Philco @ 59:
Thanks, Mike, couldn't agree more with you.
Isn't progressive another word for more liberal than thou? It's really annoying when Deanie-babies come out of the woodwork. Those are the jerks that voted for Nader in 2000. Many of them are the same idiots Barrack was talking about when he said I know her supporters will vote for me but I don't know if mine will vote for her. (This is the single most odious intra-party comment I've ever heard in 40 something years of participatory politics, but, you know the guy has cited Ron Raygun as a role model.)
Nader only points out what we already know. The Pelosis, Reids, Rockefellers, Clintons, and (maybe) Obamas all serve the same masters. The Democrats got us into the iraq War, approved blatant wealth transfers to the upper classes, eroded and eliminated individual rights, and have protected the Bush criminals to this day. The Republicans at least had the honesty to run as they are, the "Democrats" had the gall to pretend they represented the "other side." George W. Bush would not have even attempted much of this destruction if it were not for guarantees of protection from the "other side."
The worst is the vitriol Nader receives, not from the right (who are terrified to address his points), but from the left, who accuse him of being responsible for the crimes of the right (which he has actually fought) as well as the most petty accusations of vanity.
The media has a well trained populace.
secretmojo @ 426:
michaelj @ 436:
There is no evidence that Dean voters in 2004 voted for Nader in 2000.
Comments are closed on this entry