The consumer advocate announced on Meet the Press this AM that he is launching another bid to garner the votes of folks out there who are dissatisfied with the 2008 crop of candidates. Nader, two years older than McCain at 73, received 2.7% of the vote in 2000, and 0.3% in 2004. (AP):
So, past Naderites and disaffected voters in Pandagon land…Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will “shift the power from the few to the many.”
Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.
“You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected,” he said. “You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts.”
…Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, speaking shortly before Nader’s announcement, said Nader’s past runs have shown that he usually pulls votes from the Democratic nominee. “So naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race,” the former Arkansas governor said on CNN.
Will you vote for Nader?
__ Yes, none of the candidates represent my views
__ Yes, we need to keep the other parties in check
__ No, he’s a spoiler and will shave Dem votes
__ No, his time has past and he’s irrelevant
The last thread on the prospect of Nader running was quite active, let’s say…
132 Responses to “Nader’s in”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I wholeheartedly agree with Teresa Nielsen Hayden on this one:
Nader is a self-absorbed piece of crap. I don’t care what wonderful things he did before - right now, he’s hurting America and he needs to stop.
I can’t really get up the stomach to care anymore what Nader does. I think the precipitous drop off in his meager support from 2000 to 2004 pretty much says all that needs to be said about his relevance to political discourse now.
I think it’s time for Ralph’s friends (assuming he has any left) to stage an intervention.
I really have to believe that there’s nobody left in America who would vote for Nader if he runs and Obama/Clinton if he doesn’t. I think his only fans, that three in a thousand, are Nader or Nothingers. So I don’t care.
The title of that documentary about him is proving to be rather prescient, isn’t it?
Especially if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, there’s really just NO reason for Nader to be running this year. What does he have to add to the discourse this time?
Hopefully we can divide by 9 again to find his support in 2008: slightly over 0.03%. Or maybe we can subtract 2.4 again, and find out that he actually gets -2.1% support.
What bothers me is that the right (and some of the anti-Clinton contingent on the left) tries to somehow equate Ross Perot’s influence on the ‘92 and ‘96 elections with Nader’s in ‘00. Perot was pro-choice and anti-free trade, and simply represented “change” (change being from 12 years of GOP rule in ‘92,) so his draw to the right was far less pure than Nader’s to the left.
There’s no question that Clinton wouldn’t have won states like Georgia and Montana without Perot, but given that he still won 370+ electoral votes both tries and won the popular vote by 6% and 9%, his election isn’t “tainted” by not getting 50% (I doubt Reagan would’ve been able to get 50% against Mondale if Perot drew 19%.)
Glorioski, what’s with all the hating on Nader? The man is purely and simply committed to creating the highest quality entertainment experience for his clients, artists and fans. What a bunch of killjoys we have here.
With all due respect, this post alone has already used more words than are appropriate for the magnitude of this non-story. Nader declaring he’s running for president is about as relevant and impacting on the race as Dane Cook announcing he’s running to promote his latest shitty movie. I truly, truly feel sorry for him.
I think its great. I really want to see a Ralph Nader vs. Cynthia McKinney debate. That would be far more entertaining than any of the debates so far. I don’t think there is the slightest chance of Nader siphoning off votes from anyone.
Yes, I will vote for him, unless the Dem nominee moves significantly to the left.
I won’t vote for Nader because of the third reason mentioned:
“__ No, he’s a spoiler and will shave Dem votes”
What I don’t get about Nader is that, I can see his point in running in 2000, even though I did not vote for him then, and would not have. But I could see his point at least.
However, you would think that after 2000, and especially after the invasion of Iraq, he would perhaps realize that there were really, really desperate reasons to want Bush out of power, and to try to rein in the Neoconservatives in any way possible. And I’m sorry but the only way to do that is to actually remove Republicans from power- something that Nader will never do. I don’t want to vote for someone with absolutely no sense of realpolitik.
Nader seems like a broken record now. He has done really good things in the past. He should give up on the presidentcy and focus his considerable skill and strength on something acheivable and in fact deadly important, like trying to forestall a US attack on Iran. Only his diehard fans will vote for him now anyway, but I just don’t understand what he’s trying to accomplish. If at first you don’t succeed, step back and think- you’re probably doing something wrong.
Well, he is the anti-war candidate. Now is the time to see who really gives a damn about this
God, please not Nader again. I had a friend who was a Naderite and she said smugly she wanted to ’send a message.’ Yeah, well, send a fucking telegram and preserve the right to abortion, as well as keeping that fucking tool out of office. What’s the point of sending a message to nobody that doesn’t even register?
Nader’s chances of siphoning votes off a candidate that might actually get elected fall in indirect proportion to how much people care about getting actual policies enacted (as opposed to making useless stands on principle, then getting no actual policies enacted). I’d say he’ll draw less support this election than either of the previous two.
Honestly I never got the Nader hate- in this election I think he is irrelevant. Do I think he is going to shave votes from the Dems? Not really. Unlike ‘00 the Dems will have candidates to get excited about. In 2000 most people I knew were unexcited about casting their ballot for either Bush or Gore, they saw them the same. Clearly, hindsight is 20/20 and most people I know really wish they had been more involved in the race. The results for ‘04 show that Nader really cant survive as a candidate when people see clear differences between the main two political parties.
I know people that will probably vote for Nader this time–to protest the two party system. If not him they will vote for another 3rd party candidate or not vote at all–mostly because they think neither party represents their interests. I think it is important to vote for the party that is closer to your views than vote for only ideal candidates but to each their own.
Oh Noes! This means that I’ll have to wallow through troops of Naderites trying to get signatures to get him on the ballot and yelling “It’s about Democracy, man!” as I walk past, in addition to the crazy-ass LaRouche kids every fucking time i try to walk through the Common.
Dear Ralph,
…..whatever.
Sincerely,
-the rest of us
God damn it, Nader! Stop it already! All you’re doing is sending the message that third-party candidates are a joke. Thanks.
I wonder if in the cosmic balance of things, Naderites and Paulbots cancel each other out, like matter and anti-matter?
What has Nader been doing during the non-presidential election years? What have he and his supporters been doing to make change since 2000?
I did vote for Nader in 2000, I live in a very solid Dem state, so there was NO chance my vote was going to stop Gore from getting a win in my state - but I wanted to help get some visibility for 3rd parties - but nothing has happened since. I have voted in all of the elections since - local, state, federal - haven’t seen much from Team Nader.
Pam, you need a 5th catagory and I’ll be the first to check that box:
5. Not just “No”, but “Fuck, NO!!”
http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#politician
Gods, I wish Paul would run as a third-party candidate.
I would have a lot more respect for Nader if he had worked to get respect and support for 3rd parties from the ground up. The president is not the be-all, end-all of politics and it’s not the place to start to build an alternative to the two major parties. I do have a great deal of respect for his activism.
But his point about the two-party system just doesn’t hold much water if he isn’t out there trying to gain respect for a third party with more than a symbolic gesture.
This from Barack Obama last night regarding Nader:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/23/obama-not-concerned-by-possible-nader-bid/?mod=googlenews_wsj
Vote for Nader? How about: “Maybe, unless the Dems do the smart thing and offer him a Cabinet position, like Secretary of Labor.”
“I wonder if in the cosmic balance of things, Naderites and Paulbots cancel each other out, like matter and anti-matter?”
Correct.
If they’re together in the same room, the volatile combination of baseless arrogance, denial, stupidity, and the massive vibrations from being holier-than-now would cause a cataclysmic release of energy which would shake the earth to its very core…
WOW. I just… don’t know what to say about this. Just… WOW.
The president is not the be-all, end-all of politics and it’s not the place to start to build an alternative to the two major parties.
Right. Why isn’t Nader trying to get more Greens voted Mayor, State Senator, Water Commissioner, School Board member, etc. etc.? That could actually have an effect.
I agree with Rachel - I don’t think Nader has a chance of affecting the Democratic race this time because we DO have candidates we are excited about. I think he was definitely a spoiler in the 2000 election, but not the only one. I wish he hadn’t run in 2000, and especially not again in ‘04, but I just can’t see his actions as ego-driven. I think he has legitimate issues with our 2-Party system and just hasn’t found a good way to address them.
Note to Nader:
This ain’t the 1990s anymore. We can no longer pretend that idealism is enough. Get out of the race, do something useful.
Good god. The man has no defense. He’s had his moment in the sun. Cynthia McKinney is running…why isn’t he throwing her his support??? I’d love to hear his theory about how spoiling not only the Democratic vote but also the party most fit to challenge corporate power (Greens) is somehow good for democracy. This is an ego trip pure and simple.
AKA, egotistical irrelevance vs. the clinically insane.
“the clinically insane”
politically correct term for now-defunct “uppity black bitch”
Always nice to see the true feelings of oh-so-enlightened liberals…
Penguin-
Ok, shes our Ron Paul. Better?
And call me crazy, but since I’m Jewish that kind of precludes me from liking anti-semites.
“Ok, shes our Ron Paul. Better?”
Not even close. Unless you consider truly progressive policies on the environment, women’s rights, gay rights, the poor et al to be in the same league as dissolving the IRS…
Look, if you live in a red state by all means be practical and go for the Democrat. I live in a die-hard blue state so I’m going to enjoy the privilege in Nov. & vote for someone who truly represents my principles. Enough with the name-calling.
Look, its not the third party thing I have a problem with. I voted for Cobb in 04 because I lived in a huge blue state at the time.
Its the fact that McKinney secretly thinks Jews control the world. Shes an anti-semite. If thats your definition of progressive I’ll pass.
Its the fact that McKinney secretly thinks Jews control the world. Shes an anti-semite. If thats your definition of progressive I’ll pass.
On what evidence do you claim this? Cite.
I guess her support form the New Black Panther Party–an anti-semitic organization–doesn’t matter.
I guess the fact her father said that “The Jews have bought everybody…J-E-W-S” the night she lost her primary doesn’t matter.
I also guess that one of her supporters in her entourage the same night said“Why do you think she lost? You wanna know what led to the loss? Israel. The Zionists. You. Put on your yarmulke and celebrate.”
Shes also a 9/11 truther.
Like Ron Paul on the other side of the isle, she is supported by and associates with some pretty shady characters. Either shes oblivious to this or doesn’t care. Either way, it disqualifies her from my support and it should from yours too.
@ Atheist–I don’t know about antisemitism wrt to McKinney but living in the Atlanta area for 15 years, I can attest that she’s batshit insane. She may be right on some key progressive issues but it does not logically follow that she cannot also be completely round-the-bend, tinfoil beanie-wearing nuts.
@MattEss, perhaps that is the answer to our energy crisis! If we could but harness it!
I suspect that Nader will get his funding as usual from right-wing power players hoping he will siphon off enough votes to help Saint McCain…
As a play on an annoying ad these days…”Ralph, I love your message, but I HATE your product!”
Even with funding, don’t think Nader will have much impact on the coming presidential election…
Apparently Nader won the Green California Primary by 61% to McKinney’s 26%. I think momentum is building for the Draft Ralph candidacy. Nader is to McKinney as Obama is to Clinton! Ralph the Green spoiler derailing the inevitable Cynthia!
Nader should be in the same category as
- Nigerian scam
- Viagra spam
- Chimpie’s smirk
I’m sorry, but this is nothing but ego. Nader hasn’t done anything to build a viable third party in this country– which means grassroots, local politics not national politics– and he can’t seem to understand how critical EVERY vote will be in this election if we truly want a change from the last eight years. I don’t think Nader can shave enough votes to throw the election, but he can introduce unnecessary distractions.
I tend to think that the next president will be a one-term president simply because Bushco has made such a fucking mess of things that undoing the damage will be a protracted process with few immediate results to point to before the 2012 election.
I made a post with cites to McKinney’s anti-semitism but its in moderation. But you can go to the ADL’s website and google her name for some informative reading.
Who’s Ben, anyway?
But you can go to the ADL’s website and google her name for some informative reading.
I’ll check it out, thanks. Gotta say though, the ADL is seeming a lot less credible to me in the past few years. They often take any criticism of Israeli policies in the Middle East as ‘anti-semitism’. They seem partisan to me.
Nader should just support Obama and be done with it. We can thank Nader for George W. Bush
Atheist I agree with your assesment of the ADL in recent years with regards to criticism of Israel (or more accurately, right-wing policies in Israel).
But theres a difference between criticizing certain right-wing Israeli policies and saying TEH JEW stole the election from you, or telling the “Jewish media” to “put on your yarmulke and celebrate”. Her close supporters did both.
Any campaign that attracts those kinds of people suggests something rotten at its core. Shes either oblivious to it or doesn’t really care.
This video says all that needs to be said re Nader. So awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIFEceopAUI
(blows whistle) Foul on the play- debate wasn’t about what Dad said, but CM herself.
(blows whistle again) Okay, resume!
To those who want Nadar out of the race, so people won’t have the /choice. to vote for him;
/You/ don’t have to vote for him if you don’t wanna, that’s your choice. Don’t like Nadar? Don’t vote for him.
I made a comment on the Nader forums this morning which was promptly either censored or screened.
I also noticed several others which met the same fate, and commented appropriately against it, only to have those comments taken down shortly after being posted.
The post and screenshots of my comments are available at http://insomnia.livejournal.com/801438.html
Interestingly enough, after I made a post mentioning that I posted the evidence online, I got first an email — which I missed until about 20 minutes ago — and a series of pretty nastily spun comments from a person in the Nader campaign, who said that they didn’t have anyone available to approve of comments to their website, except for a few that came in this morning. (Nevermind that I saw several comments being deleted for quite awhile until apparently they all became screened by default.
To this moment, they’ve only approved five comments to their announcement post.
But at least they’ve found the time to respond directly to my blog though, right?!
Nader can be on the ballot in all 50 states. I have a feeling the margin of victory is going to be so big for Obama it won’t matter.
I voted for Nader in 1996 (a vote I wouldn’t take back) and in 2000 (a vote I would). Didn’t even consider it in 2004, and I won’t again.
A fringe figure in American politics, he’s the Stassen of our time.
Fuck Nader.
Mark Kraft, I found this earlier from Nader, regarding an earlier Clinton/Obama debate:
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02022008.html
I’ll skip all the other comments and just say D) No, his time is past. I was a Nader voter in the past and will go toe-to-toe with any of the tired Dem arguments, but there’s just no there there, anymore.
Louise-
Fair enough. Here’s mine:
“Nader, you’re a Halliburton stockholder. Explain.”
He’s a Halluburtion stockholder? Just when I thought I couldn’t hate the fucker more.
I didn’t know he held stock in Halliburton. And he has the audacity to rail against corporate influence? Give me a break.
Nader was also strongly anti-union for his *own* workers at Public Citizen. He treated them like shit–long hours, low pay–because he expected them to be as committed and ascetic as he was.
He is an absolutist. As everyone else has said upthread, he’s done nothing to build a 3rd-party infrastructure, and worked at cross-purposes from the Greens in 2004.
I also simply don’t think the Greens are going to be viable at anything other than a local level in left-leaning places like central Minneapolis, Madison, or Berkeley. In Minnesota, Nader’s performance in 2000 (over 5% of the vote) qualified the Greens for major party status. In 2002, they had a good gubernatorial candidate who was active, participated in all the debates, was articulate (Ken Pentel), seemed like a good guy. He got less than 3% of the vote.
Nader’s running a vanity candidacy. He is irrelevant.
Nader was able to get a significant number of votes in 2000, when, as somebody said above, a lot of people weren’t too excited by the choice between Gore and Bush, and may not have seen them as being significantly different from one another.
However, Bush turned out to way more fucking awful than I think most would have predicted, because without 9/11 he wouldn’t have had the opportunity to do nearly as much damage as he’s done. 9/11 may not have “changed everything” but it has surely changed Nader’s ability to have any real impact on the 2008 elections. Obama (hopefully) v. McCain is going to look like a much starker contrast to most voters than did Bush v. Gore circa 2000.
_No. Reason: other
I will probably be voting for whomever gets the democratic nomination. Historically speaking, the dems have no chance here in Idaho, but the more the hidden democrats here see other dems out there, the more I hope that it will encourage them to a) actually vote and b) vote for the democratic nominee to push us closer to transforming Idaho into a blue state (ha ha ha). Hopeless idealism, most likely, but I think it’s more useful than withholding my vote (although none of the candidates actually is anywhere close to my ideal candidate).
Good. You get to keep your vowels then. On Electrosux you pretty much have to start all of your comments that way.
I do know a couple who i believe are likely to vote Nader. They seem to get off on throwing away their votes to “send a message”.
In the NY primary they voted Edwards(whom had already withdrawn), to “send a message”. I never got what the message they were sending was. They consider themselves progressives yet they hate Hillary(for reasons too bizarre to get into here, it has something to do with Spiderman creator Stan Lee), and i think they just don’t like Obama because Oprah recommended him.
I wonder if his campaign effort is going to be funded by the Republicans, like last time.
Why isn’t Nader trying to get more Greens voted Mayor, State Senator, Water Commissioner, School Board member, etc. etc.?
Perhaps because Nader has never been a member of the Green Party nor does he give a damn about it? He’s a lifelong independent who is essentially hostile to political parties. This is not a sensible person to try to build a third-party movement around.
(And just in case there’s any confusion, while I’m certainly named Ben, I’m not the “Ben” posting above.)
On the question of whether I’d vote for Nader in November…
Absolutely not. In part because I think that over the last seven years he and his supporters have done deep, perhaps irreparable, damage to the Green Party.
I voted for Nader in 1996 in NJ. And I would have voted for him in 2000 had he been on the ballot in Oklahoma. FWIW, I regret neither of those decisions.
Since you asked…
I voted for Nader in 2000, much for the reasons CParis noted above, except my very red state had no chance of doing anything but going for Bush. I do not regret my vote, and I think most of the anti-Nader screeching in the past seven years has less to do with the actual damage he did to Gore in the election and more to do with the cognotive dissonance from watching the Democratic Party bend over backwards for the Worst Administration In History and being told to, more or less, fuck off in favor of appeasing knuckle-dragging morons in Suburban America terrified of brown people, especially if they’re gay. I mean, really, who’s done more damage to democracy in the past seven or so years, Nader or Joe Lieberman?
That all being said, I didn’t vote for the glory-hogging sonofabitch in 2004 and I fart in the general direction of the idea that I might do this year. Fuck that noise, son, the guy has done jack shit since 2000 except break his arm patting himself on the back for “sending the Democrats a message” that he didn’t, not really, and that they don’t give a fuck about anyhow.
And that’s what really pisses me off about Nader, beyond the hypocracy and the hubris. He had the opportunity and the good will of so many people, people willing to fight behind the right person, and he sat on his thumbs. The government took more and more power and sank deeper and deeper into corporate-controlled psuedo-facism, and Ralph couldn’t be bothered. What a disappointment. What a missed opportunity. What a mook.
I would never consider voting for Nader in this election, but having heard him speak several time, he is substantively correct on the issue of corporate influence in the bulk of the Democratic party. Does this apply to the Democratic presidential candidates? Not necessarily. But if you look at Clinton and the types of corporate advisors she has running her campaign and the Wall street types that have been some of her biggest supporters, Nader has a point.
That being said, I think one should be pragmatic and consider reality when making decisions. But in a perfect world, the Democrats wouldn’t be nearly as beholden to huge corporate interests as they are.
…I think most of the anti-Nader screeching in the past seven years has less to do with the actual damage he did to Gore in the election and more to do with the cognotive dissonance from watching the Democratic Party bend over backwards for the Worst Administration In History…
Agreed.
Plus, nobody ever seems to mention that half the electorate stayed home in 2000. Might that have had an effect?
Nader won’t make any difference this year. I voted for him in 2000, knowing that nobody but Gee Dumbya had a chance where I live - I mean, look at my username. I wanted to help get third parties taken more seriously. But I do agree that he’s done nothing for the cause of third parties since.
SamFromUtah,
Well, voter turnout - not to mention the lack thereof - is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish, but yeah, it’s something else to consider in the grand tapestry of bullshit that is the 2000 election. Nader’s a good Judas goat, mainly because screaming at the media or the DNC ain’t gonna help. It’s not like we’re their market anyhow.
But I do agree that he’s done nothing for the cause of third parties since.
Hell, I’d say Nader’s done nothing but hurt the cause of third parties since and up to 2000. Like others have said, he’s had no hand in building up any solid, grassroots progressive political movements, just jumping for the brassiest ring of them all. When you hear from him at all. Just what has the guy been doing since the last time he pissed in everyone’s cornflakes, anyway?
In the meantime, he’s pissing of moderate Democrats and he’s leaving those of us that find the Democratic Party too conservative with no real recourse. The Greens are nowhere near getting over the damage he did to them and their reputation, and the animosity keeps any legit third party from getting off the ground. So, thanks to Ralph, we’re even more stuck with the two-headed monster that is the American electoral process.
Now, that’s a tremelous thought to ponder, is it not?
Nader for president in ‘08!!!
That pretty much nails it right there. It’s all about Ralph, isn’t it?
Ah, but he doesn’t NEED any corporate influesnces to keep him rolling in the dough, does he? Not when there’s all those college kids to steal from! (From my link above) He is very, very skilled at hiding his money.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! HE IS A FUCKING HALLIBURTON STOCKHOLDER!
Rachel’s right. I voted for Nader in 2000 because Gore had little to offer besides having kept a chair warm in the White House for 8 years. Nader seemed like a true Progressive. Plus, he was the only candidate actually to campaign in California — the others just came to pick up donors’ checks. At the time, California could be assumed to go Democratic, so my vote wasn’t an issue.
I don’t need a Nader to vote for this year because Obama’s the first major party candidate that I actually want to vote for; the others have all been hold-your-nose-and-pick-the-lesser-of-two-evils. I admit that while he seems to be a Progressive, Obama like HRC has seemed to throw many of my sisters and brothers under the bus.
Which reminds me: does Nader support equal rights for gays, lesbians, and genderqueer individuals? If not, what the hell’s the point of his candidacy?
I don’t know about McKinney. Criticism of her makes me suspicious, because, generally when people call out a politician as anti-Semitic, it means they’re insufficiently Zionist to AIPAC’s liking. I always ask if the politician in question is more anti-Semitic than Rabbi Michael Lerner. Israel’s supporters should realize that the same desire for social justice that made the left initially support Israel, when applied to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians made many leftists wonder who the good guy in the Middle East really is. McCain has already sworn his undying fealty to Israel, if anyone’s shopping around for a candidate.
And hey, why is Nader a shareholder? Perhaps it’s because only shareholders can bring shareholder proposals for a vote.
The comments about Nader siphoning votes from Gore have always pissed me off.
In a Democratic country, I have a real hard time dealing with the idea that only officially sanctioned people should run for President.
Especially given that the two officially sanctioned parties from which candidates are allowed to run run the gamut from right wing all the way to centrist.
If Nader caused Gore to lose, then that just proves that our electoral system is massively corrupt, and we should blame the system, and not Nader for refusing to work within it.
Honestly, in 2000 it wasn’t obvious how awful Bush was, and Gore ran his campaign in a way that played right into Nader’s rhetoric about the parties being the same. Am I the only one who remembers that presidential debate where Bush and Gore would always lead of their rebuttals with some variation of “I agree with what my opponent just said”?
Honestly, back then I didn’t like Bush, and I voted for Gore, but I never thought things would get this bad if Bush won.
I thought that Congress would keep some check on his power, if for no other reason then that they’d want to hang onto their own power, and that the Republicans would keep him from getting this out of line, because it would destroy their party.
All that aside, I really don’t care one way or another. For one thing, much like in 2000 I think the Democratic candidates are actually pretty good.
And, as people have said, there doesn’t seem to be much point in it, since he doesn’t seem to have done much to promote left-wing causes in the last eight years.
As a conservative, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to Ralph Nader for his 2000 Green Party presidential campaign. He siphoned enough votes from the left away from Al Gore in Florida to allow George W Bush to squeak by, and win the presidency. The Republican Party, the United States in general, and the whole world, are much better off thanks to Mr Nader’s efforts.
And I’ll add my personal thanks as well: thanks to the Bush tax cuts, which Mr Nader made possible, my family has saved over $10,000 in income taxes!
Ralph Nader: he did more good than he ever knew!
At least Pat Paulson knew that his quadrennial presidential campaigns were a joke!
And hey, why is Nader a shareholder? Perhaps it’s because only shareholders can bring shareholder proposals for a vote.
Shareholders also get reports about the company’s activities that are much more detailed than the press releases that make it to the outside world.
I don’t know if that’s why Nader owns stock, but I’ve known environmentalists who own small amounts of chemical and oil company stock just for that reason.
Yeah, Dana, nothing paints you more accuralately than your pettiness and gloating. Fuck off.
As someone with very little intention to vote for the Democratic party, I can say there is no way in Hell I would vote for Nader. His time came and went some 12 years ago. Since 2000, in particular, he’s shown himself to be egotistical, cynical, and patently not oriented in either changing the political process or actually helping those he claims to stand up for.
In particular, I hate the fact that he has actively undermined the Green Party and third parties as an option in general. By consistently running on the same tired platform, even when the Greens did not nominate him, he’s been the main reason the very concept of a national candidate who doesn’t come from the same establishment parties as always has become a complete joke. I personally feel that blaming him for Bush is terrible and unrealistic, but his run in 2000 is a prime reason very few people consider voting for third parties any more. Ralph needs to give it up.
How about:
__No, because he reminds me of the alcoholic uncle that only shows up to Christmas dinner to make his sister miserable, and otherwise couldn’t give a rats ass about the family.
In a metaphoric way, of course.
If he gave a damn about the country, he’d be doing something other than running his creepy “nonprofits” the other 3.75 years.
‘Nuff said:
http://www.republicansfornader.com/
Dana, as crass as ever. May you never know poverty; I don’t think you’d adapt to it very well.
“…thanks to the Bush tax cuts, which Mr Nader made possible, my family has saved over $10,000 in income taxes!”
Dana, I figured even you were smarter than that.
You didn’t “save” $10,000. You just avoided paying some unknown amount for a few years.
Thanks to the Republican philosophy of “cut taxes but still spend”, especially for a hugely expensive and pointless war of choice, you’ll be paying, I’ll be paying, and our kids will be paying for a very long time.
But I guess in your mind it was all worth it, just to stick it to the libruls…
Bush’s first budget in 2001 was $2 trillion. His final budget in 2008 is for $3.1 trillion. That’s a 55 percent increase in spending in just 8 years.
Now stop derailing the thread. This is about Nader right now.
I don’t like Nader, have never voted for him, and would never vote for him. That said, I agree with Sam and Christopher. Nader isn’t the only or even the main reason that Gore had the election stolen from him in 2000. Gore ran an ineffectual campaign, too many voters stayed home, people honestly didn’t see much of a difference between the candidates (not that there WASN’T any difference - just that people didn’t PERCEIVE it), no-one believed things would get as bad as they did, and no-one believed a Democratic Congress could be as gutless as it was. And there was the role of the media and the DNC as well. Nader was only one of a constellation of many factors.
2008 is far, far different than 2000. Most importantly, people who want “change” are lining up behind Barack Obama, and there is just no way that Nader could siphon off enough votes from Obama to make a difference. People are sick to death of Nader anyway, and the prevailing sentiment seems to be “why doesn’t he just go away?”
“Now stop derailing the thread. This is about Nader right now.”
Dickishness, thy name is seroj…
Dana stated in his opinion that because of Nader he saved money. I merely pointed out that this “saving” was an illusion. You even presented figures that support my point.
It’s still related to Nader…
Of course Dana saved money. Bush enacted a tax cut that cut the amount every taxpayer has paid in taxes the last several years. Dana has paid less, so he saved money. There’s no illusion to it.
Can we get back on topic now?
I think that all of you should vote for Nader. Go Nader!!!!
“Dana has paid less, so he saved money. There’s no illusion to it.
Can we get back on topic now?”
Okay, how’s this?
Ralph Nader is a sadly deluded, arrogant, asshole who has sniffed his own shit for way too long. Just like seroj.
If life was fair, he would have died in a tragic Corvair accident many years ago.
But even Ralph Nader would understand that if you’ve borrowed a whole bunch of money (through huge federal deficits), you’re going to have to pay it back. So, indeed, any “savings” from Bush’s tax cuts are an illusion…
Now, when you try to pretend you are a breatharian, like Nader seems to behave, you may delude yourself into believing that you don’t actually own a portion of the debt of this country, but you do…
Nader prevented the Corvair from reaching its full potential. It could have been almost as good as the Trabant if Ralph hadn’t mucked up the works.
“It could have been almost as good as the Trabant if Ralph hadn’t mucked up the works.”
Yeah! Who WOULDN’T want to be known for producing America’s answer to the Trabant?…
Sorry, didn’t mean to get off thread. Its just that the Trabant had the finest cardboard dash ever introduced to the East German market.
“Sorry, didn’t mean to get off thread.”
Didn’t bother me. Now seroj might have a bug up his ass about it…
Oh, does Seroj like Trabbies?
Louise wrote:
But that’s just it, Louise: I did know poverty. I grew up very poor. There were many evenings when dinner was peanut butter crackers and Campbell’s chicken noodle soup. My mother worked her fingers to the bone to put a roof over our heads and food on the table, and it put her in her grave at age 61. She finally started making decent money after I left, and I started making good money after a lot of years of not making much.
That’s why I think everybody can do better; if I could do it, than so can anyone else.
Oh, y’all are absolutely right that President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congresses spent too much money, way too much money.
The voters keep voting for lower taxes; even the two Democrats remaining are promising a “middle class tax cut.” What the politicians have to do now is cut spending to match what the people vote for in taxes.
Well, I agree with Ben Alpers. Nader is running on ego and vanity. If he were trying to build a true progressive party, or was fighting to change the method of counting votes in the US elections to support independants and multiple parties, I’d have more support for him.
As it is, between the horror stories of how he treats his staff and the quixotic spoiler runs he launches every 4 years, I have no use for him.
Yeah, Dana, like spending on your fat ass.
And the military.
I always find it amusing when people who claim allegiance to democratic principles want to take a choice away from people. In effect saying let us not give the people an opportunity to vote for someone that might want, let us force them to vote for my candidate.
Its so very amusing when people who come here to share and spread liberal/progressive values and ideas want Nader to disappear, in effect to silence not only the most articulate spokesperson of those liberal/progressive ideas but the one who has the most success of any living american in manifesting many of those liberal progressive ideas.
Nader’s goal in running is the same as one of the netroots major goals. To spread information about liberal ideas. The only way to get the message out in the corporate media is by running for president. I support his run for the presidency for that reason.
By far Nader would be the best president since FDR maybe better. I’ll support him in any way that I can. But the reality is he can’t be elected. In the end I’ll hold my nose and vote for the democratic nominee
Someone waaaay upthread mentioned making Nader the Secretary of Labor. Could I just say that putting a guy who’s been involved in union-busting would be a bad, bad thing to do?
Ralph Nader has every right to run if he wants, and those who wish to vote for him should have that opportunity.
He got my vote in 2000, and I agree with many of his stances, though certainly not all. I don’t believe he single-handedly gave us GWB. The Rehnquist gang, Karl Rove, and our massive population of redneck/Christer/Randite idiots would’ve done that just fine on their own, given the haplessness and tin-eared wonkery of 2000-era Gore.
But this isn’t about whether or not he should be allowed to run. It’s about whether he will get my vote. And he will NOT.
Here are your laurels, Ralph. Now go take a goddamned nap.
What’s the difference between Ralph Nader and a duckbilled platypus?
One’s completely irrelevant to the outcome of the 2008 election, and the other one lays eggs.
Nader can advocate anything at any time—so why do we only hear from him every four years when he runs for President?
Reminds me of Bill Cosby’s routine about cats; “What are cats good for? Because they eat mice!!?? They can eat mice any time! I come home, see the cat taking a nap, and say “I haven’t seen you eating any mice lately.” and the cat answers “No, man, because I’m full. Besides, some of them haven’t bathed yet.”
Having now offended both cat people and Nader people, I am now going to bed.
What an unsurprising disappointment.
Yes, and Nader’s certainly taken down Halliburton.
Oh wait. He’s profited off of a murderous war in Iraq. Which he helped start. Lovely.
You know, I’m going with the happy thought that since “No Country for Old Men” did so well last night, Nader and McCain don’t have a chance in hell…
Making it personally about Ralph Nader (who I kind of think is an asshole, although he used to be cool) is a way to avoid addressing the issue which I brought up, which is that his criticisms of corporate influence in the democratic party today are substantively correct.
Now, of course I’ll be voting for the Democrat, because I live in the real world, but that doesn’t make what I wrote above untrue.
Perhaps because he isn’t Green and never was? I held my nose to vote for him in 2000 because I felt he was a poor fit for the party and didn’t particularly like the whole devil’s deal of the whole thing. I didn’t vote for him in 2004 because he wasn’t on the ticket.
I didn’t read past twelve. Except for the last.
The Nader 2000 energy was responsible for electing two Green city council people in Minneapolis in 2001.
That was party building even if Ralph himself didn’t focus on it.
I am disturbed by the depth of the haters out here. This is not our famed Left reasoned arguement - it’s pile-on.
ALSO he ran in 1996, or at least was on my ballot in Minnesota.
Well, I thought that Nader was a poor fit for the Green party for multiple reasons. His focus was too U.S. centric on issues of “free trade” while most of us saw that “free trade” involved giving the G8 political leverage to twist the arm of less developed nations, with treaty obligation trumping local labor, environmental laws and encouraging the privatization of industries and services. Nader didn’t share the Greens uncompromising view of social justice, engaged pacifism and equality. Nader’s whole reason for running centered on election reform and reducing corruption, while the Green platform contextualized those ideas within a social justice agenda. He kept punting on things like health care and education. Getting the U.S. out of Iraq was a priority for Greens in 2000, less so for Nader.
In 2000, after a decade of being at war and having been repeatedly smacked down with DOMA and DADT, after seeing how the State Department was negotiating in bad faith to gut every environmental accord on the table, after seeing real wages stagnate and a growing gap between rich and poor, after seeing Hooveresque investigation and subversion of left-wing groups by federal law enforcement, I voted for a platform that was unapologetically for engaged pacifism in foreign policy, adamantly aggressive in striving for social justice in domestic policy, and was willing to put a feminist woman of color in the White House.
What he says != Who he is.
Thus, no substance.
Mercy me, Nader’s supporters have grown so incurious that they’re now shrugging off Halliburton instead of just straight up ignoring it. I don’t know which one’s more astonishing.
I googled Nader and Halliburton, to find only a salon article saying that Nader owned shares in the world’s biggest mutual fund, Fidelity Magellan, which happened at the time to own shares in Halliburton. Considering that Nader had no control over which shares Magellan chose to buy or sell, I’m going to give him a pass.
Only ye who foreswore Kraft Macaroni and Cheese because it was owned by a cigarette company are eligible to cast stones at Ralph.
Nader, much like Racist Ron Paul, is one of those people who waits until everyone’s tired of bullshit before smugly wagging their finger in your face and saying “I told you so!” He’s a Bush supporter and out only to stroke his massive ego. He and his drones can go die in the same pit as the Paul cult, for all I care.
Google Ron Paul
(Sorry. This thread just seemed to be missing something without an annoying Paulbot comment.)
Bitter Scribe: Odd part is, if you do Google Ron Paul, one of the top results is his voting record - which shows him as the sexist, racist, paranoid, ignorant, psychopathic jackass he is.
Except that not a single person who dislikes Nader has suggested that he should be prevented from running or that those who wish to vote for him should be disenfranchised.
One of those fine democratic principles for which you seem to be showing contempt is the right for the rest of us to call Nader on his shit, encourage others not to waste their vote on him, and to wish that he would not run a campaign whose only purpose will be to distract the Democratic candidates by forcing them to engage with his absolutist rhetoric (paradoxically appearing less moderate to the moderates and less liberal to the far-left), thereby alienating the moderate swing voters who will instead vote for a “moderate” like McCain and the far-left progressives who see the Democratic party as moving too far to the right.
Diehard Naderites, like Ron Paul devotees, make my head explode from the cognitive dissonance it takes to sustain their faith.
I am disturbed by the depth of the haters out here. This is not our famed Left reasoned arguement - it’s pile-on.
The famed left reasoned argument was obviously an illusion. This election cycle has caused me to sever all connection with Kos, I won’t be going back. Huffington post is no longer on my favorites. The only two sites I still respect are Digby’s and TPM. I’ve lost a lot of respect for this site but not enough to dump it yet. People everywhere on the left are acting like freepers. They’ve forgotten how to have rational dialog.
Except that not a single person who dislikes Nader has suggested that he should be prevented from running or that those who wish to vote for him should be disenfranchised.
————————————————————-
I’ve seen people saying they don’t want him to run which is saying they don’t want people to have a choice to vote for him
——————————————————
One of those fine democratic principles for which you seem to be showing contempt is the right for the rest of us to call Nader on his shit
—————————————————————
I’ve seen very few people call him on his shit. But I have seen a lot of those above call him a shit or something equivalent. Compare the thoughtful and insightful comments on this thread
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/02/25/6791/#more-6791
to the venom spewed on this one and tell me why anyone looking for objective and rational dialog wouldn’t be disgusted by this thread.
I’m not voting for Nader in 2008, but it’s interesting that there is no option for “No, because the Democrats have finally started to more fully represent me.”
In 2000 and 2004, I had a hard time believing Gore or Kerry would represent me very well. Hindsight, blah blah blah. But it was a failure of messaging - the Democrats could not convince me they’d be better on issues than Nader, so I didn’t vote for them - they didn’t earn it.
In 2008, we finally have candidates willing to put their backbones to the test. It’s refreshing.
Well, the only reason that Nader is relevant is because some people try to use him as a litumus test. Bashing him or expressing the proper amount of self-hatred for previously voting for him is a prerequisite to be in the club.
Wow…Sorry about your life,everyone.No shortage of cynicism here!!! I’m voting my conscience and you’ll be happy to know my absolute joy at being able to vote for someone with some integrity will not cost the “Democratic” Party anything.I’m a disillusioned republican!! VoteNader.Org
No, actually it isn’t. Saying I don’t want Nader to wage yet another vanity campaign is not an attempt to deny voters choice. It’s saying that presidential politics is actually important and should be about more than one man’s ego– that he should put the good of the people before his own self, which he does not. If people want to throw away their vote on him, I will not stand in their way, but at that point they might as well stay home for all the effect on our two-party system it will have. Instead of sending flaccid “messages”, why aren’t more Naderites involved in grassroots politics, rather than simply boycotting blogs?
If you voted for him in 2000, I can at least respect the choice because he was contributing an important voice for many progressives on issues that otherwise would have been ignored by the major candidates. There is no self-flagellation necessary in explaining being a Nader supporter in 2000, as far as I’m concerned. What did he add to the 2004 election? What will he add to the 2008 election? Not a damn thing. And in the meantime, he has spent no time putting his “ideals” into political action and making the changes he claims he wants. So what choice exactly am I supposed to be depriving voters by hoping Nader changes his mind about running? The choice to elect a do-nothing president? The choice to elect an absolutist with no pragmatic political agenda?
I also think that candidates who promote a platform of hate, exclusion, and intolerance (i.e Republicans and Libertarians) should not run for office and wish they wouldn’t. Not that they cannot run for office or that they should be legally prevented from running for office, but that (according to my moral/ethical outlook) they should not if they truly respect the people. Does that mean I am depriving hateful, intolerant people of their political choice too? I suppose to you it would. I guess to be proper progressive liberals we are supposed to give proper deference to authority figures and pretend that all candidacies are equally valid and valuable. Y’know, because having a negative opinion of Nader is just soooo intolerant.
Cry me a fucking river.
meanwhile, championing Nader is a game of political piety and a chance to display one’s empathy for narcissists with martyr complexes.
one run (2000) was a symbolic gesture, the second run (2004) was simply futile, this run simply smells like one man’s potentially disastrous quest to prove to whomever might still be listening that he is relevant.
You can talk about how Nader’s campaign is “about democracy” all you want, but really, Nader’s got as much chance of winning the white house as a Dominican boy has of making it past Rush Limbaugh with his innocence intact
No I didn’t vote for Nader in 2000 and I spent a considerable amount of time in 2004 trying to convince people not to vote for him. I’ve already stated above that I will vote for the democratic nominee this year. But I have always supported his right to run and the people’s right to vote for him. As for nader’s relevance you might be surprised. I know lots of people who are hoping that Obama looks like a landslide so they can vote for him. If its overwhelmingly clear he will win Nader might get the highest vote count he’s ever gotten.
What makes you assume that Naderites aren’t involved in grassroots politics. I lived 15 of my adult years in PA and 10 in FL as well as other areas of the country and every naderite I know has been extremely active in grassroots activism. Green party, amnesty international, environmental and poverty organizations, etc. Are you telling me your experience is different? The Naderites in your comunity are not involved in grassroots organizations? None of the hard working activists in your area are Naderites? Or is it possible you aren’t involved in those grassroots organizations enough to know if or how many Naderites are there?
Frankly, I think most of you are displacing your anger, and seeking an easy scapegoat. If Nader is the tipping point (an old, tired argument, rather than, say, going after the disenfranchisement of 2000 voters by Bush), than the Democrats have bigger problems. If they can’t win this one after the Bush administration…
Bingo. I worked at a university, so Naderites were not in short supply. Most of the people I know who voted for Nader are not involved in local politics at all. They follow national politics, and while most are quite intelligent and informed, spend more time bitching about the two-party system than trying to institute a multi-party system. This is not to say that no Naderites are involved in grassroots politics, just to say that they, like most voters who go for Dems/Repubs, are largely apathetic to the system in place, despite their claims of “sending a message.”
At this point, I wouldn’t piss on Nader if he was on fire.
Mercurial…
When you say
I am left to wonder if you actually believe it is that simple or are just pretending for some reason.
It is is at least this complicated.
And trust me, if if would not screw green and middle class causes that Nader claims to support, I would vote for him. He was and in some ways still is the real thing…but splinter groups is not how to get the job done under our electoral scheme [unless you are Karl Rove and the faction you fraction is the other guy’s].