What is this guy thinking? He is the reason why we ended up with Dubya back in 2000. Ralph Nader-GO HOME AND STAY THERE!!!!!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader



Cat

What is this guy thinking? He is the reason why we ended up with Dubya back in 2000. Ralph Nader-GO HOME AND STAY THERE!!!!!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader



Cat


I didn't realize he was still alive...


As for Nader being responsible for Bush's win in 2000, well, Gore didn't carry his home state, and while he did get the majority of the popular votes by over 500,000, I always thought the NRA was a much, much bigger factor than Nader.

Ant

i've been pretty big pro-nader but even i'm like, dude, just don't.

Oh shoot, is he planning on splitting the vote again?  Ralph, please if you cared about this country . . . sit this one out.

in the interest of fairness... there are some decent points being made here. just playing devil's advocate here, i really do wish he wouldnt run. but i hate getting put in such a position over someone with whom i agree about a lot.

***

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NADER: NOW THE SLANDER BEGINS AGAIN
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

SAM SMITH - AP started it in their lead story on Ralph Nader's
announcement that he is running for president: "He is still loathed by
many
Democrats who call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost
the
party the election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a
razor-thin
contest in Florida."

More on that below, but even if what the Democrats said were true, the
behavior of the party in the years that followed 2000 did absolutely
nothing to correct the situation. For example:

- The Democrats could have supported and worked for instant runoff
voting which dramatically changes the effect of third parties on
elections
and politics.

- They could have avoided gratuitously angering Green voters through
such cheap tricks as redistricting Maine's one Green state legislator.


- They could have adopted some Green policies, much as European major
parties do when pressed by from the left or right.

- They could have stopped being so consistently indistinguishable from
the Republicans.

- Obama could have said he would add one or more Greens to his cabinet
just as promised he might with one or more right wingers.

None of this happened.

I supported Nader's run in 2000 but, for pragmatic reasons, suggested
he not run in 2004. In my memo on the topic, I argued that just
because
you had something righteous to say didn't mean that standing in the
middle of an interstate at rush hour was the best place to argue it.
The
drop in returns for Nader and the Green candidate, David Cobb,
supported
my thesis.

At the same time, I believe that anyone who feels there is something
wrong with their neighborhood, city, state or country not only has the
right to run for public office but honors that office by doing so. To
criticize someone for exercising this right is repulsively
anti-democratic
and, when the target is Nader or the Greens, reflects the political
trust fund baby mentality of the Democratic Party, living off the hard
efforts of its past and doing little or nothing for the present and
future.

in the interest of fairness... there are some decent points being made here. just playing devil's advocate here, i really do wish he wouldnt run. but i hate getting put in such a position over someone with whom i agree about a lot.

***

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NADER: NOW THE SLANDER BEGINS AGAIN
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

SAM SMITH - AP started it in their lead story on Ralph Nader's
announcement that he is running for president: "He is still loathed by
many
Democrats who call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost
the
party the election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a
razor-thin
contest in Florida."

More on that below, but even if what the Democrats said were true, the
behavior of the party in the years that followed 2000 did absolutely
nothing to correct the situation. For example:

- The Democrats could have supported and worked for instant runoff
voting which dramatically changes the effect of third parties on
elections
and politics.

- They could have avoided gratuitously angering Green voters through
such cheap tricks as redistricting Maine's one Green state legislator.


- They could have adopted some Green policies, much as European major
parties do when pressed by from the left or right.

- They could have stopped being so consistently indistinguishable from
the Republicans.

- Obama could have said he would add one or more Greens to his cabinet
just as promised he might with one or more right wingers.

None of this happened.

I supported Nader's run in 2000 but, for pragmatic reasons, suggested
he not run in 2004. In my memo on the topic, I argued that just
because
you had something righteous to say didn't mean that standing in the
middle of an interstate at rush hour was the best place to argue it.
The
drop in returns for Nader and the Green candidate, David Cobb,
supported
my thesis.

At the same time, I believe that anyone who feels there is something
wrong with their neighborhood, city, state or country not only has the
right to run for public office but honors that office by doing so. To
criticize someone for exercising this right is repulsively
anti-democratic
and, when the target is Nader or the Greens, reflects the political
trust fund baby mentality of the Democratic Party, living off the hard
efforts of its past and doing little or nothing for the present and
future.



I agree that there are some points to be made here. The Dems are not an "all-that" type party. Far from it. Which is why I am an Independent (more of an Independent that Bill O'Reilly and/or Lou Dobbs  ::) ). I would love to see Instant Run-Off Voting (which I have said many, many times). The Dems got the majority in 2006 and for the last year they have been kowtowing to Dubya which makes me wonder what does he have over these Dems because it seems like blackmail is the ONLY reason some of them would vote in his favor which they have been doing more than not. I understand that the Dems only have a razor thin majority and it is hard to get much done but there are too many Dems siding with Dubya (like the approval of Makasey.)

However, I must say that I do see hope when I look at Obama. I know it sounds like I have really been listening to his rally cry-maybe I have. But, I have seen this country doing the status quo for WAY too long and I HAVE to believe that there is someone willing to change the way this country is going. If we don't change it NOW, it will be too late and then I suspect that if things would ever change, we would need a second revolution. I hope it doesn't come down to that. Is Obama this country's messiah? I don't know but I hope so.



Cat

Ralph Nader is not the reason George W. Bush won the presidency for George W. Bush did not win the presidency.  The U.S. Supreme Court in a partisan political decision in Bush v. Gore decided the count must not be allowed to proceed because Bush woulld....lose.

And it is not so much my interpretation of the decision as it is explicitly expressed in no uncertained terms in the majority opinion signed by the five traitors who should have been duly impeached and sent to prison. 

Don't ask me, as Vincent Bugliosi who is one of the country's finest litagators and not affiliated with Air American, Democracy Now, or even MSNBC.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi

It is not Ralph Nader's fault the Supreme Court is packed with crooks and it is not Ralph Nader's fault the trust in our electoral system has dimished by two-thirds in the past 8 years.  Gore would have had an easier time winning his home state had they not purged so many poor and black people form the voter rolls...but you go on and believe whatever loony right-wing post-military coup story the press tells you....

Anyway, Ralph, don't run.  Hang it up.  Retire.  Or have you gone stark raving crazy?
::)

He has turned himself into a Pat Paulson/Lyndon LaRouche character.  It is sad that he has tarnished the reputation he had built up in this way. 

I'll be voting Nader if Hillary gets the nomination.  There isn't much of a difference between McCain and Hillary when it comes to lobbyism.

i might vote nader. once i get into the voting booth i always start thinking, well, the election isn't gonna come down to my one vote so i think i'll just vote for who i agree with most. but until i do i'm gonna be trying to convince everyone i know NOT to vote for him. it's confusing, i know. :D

Dems are enthusiastic about Obama.  They were luke warm about Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis.  If Obama's the man, I don't think Ralph is going to be much a threat. 

I just don't want to hear any loudmouths perpetuating the myth that Gore lost because of Nader.  The fact that it was close, I conjecture, is because of the flawed DLC strategy of tilting to the right to get 50% +1.  Gore gave us a lot of that "locked box" mucky-muck and agreed with Dubya 90% of the time.  He ran as a faux Republicans against a real Republican.  I think he would have done much better if he ran as the Democratic candidate from the Democratic Party.
::)

Have the Kooch take over and fudge things up!

I'd like to see Jesse Ventura take a crack at it.

I'd like to see Jesse Ventura take a crack at it.


Now he's a no holds bar Libertarian.  :)

I'd like to see Jesse Ventura take a crack at it.


My President can suplex your President!  :D

I doubt Nader will get more than 0.5% of the vote this time around.