Nader launches fourth unsuccessful presidential bid

February 24, 2008

As expected, a certain third party candidate announced his fourth presidential campaign this morning on “Meet the Press.” (Apparently, the results of the first three weren’t quite clear enough.)

Ralph Nader is launching a third-party campaign for president. The consumer advocate made the announcement Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He says most Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties, and that none of the presidential contenders are addressing ways to stem corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promote labor rights.

There’s some debate about whether this is Nader’s third or fourth campaign, but he was a Green Party candidate in 1996 before his better known attempts in 2000 and 2004.

As for a certain presidential election that led to the Bush Nightmare, Nader still insists that Gore would have won easily in 2000 if only he had done everything Nader told him to do. “We had proposals that if Gore had picked up on, he would have landslided Bush,” Nader said.

The unpleasantness of 2000 notwithstanding, Nader appears anxious to run yet again — but as I’ve mentioned before, it’s just not quite clear why.

By his own admission, Nader doesn’t expect to win, he doesn’t expect to change the Democratic Party’s agenda, he doesn’t expect to appear in the debates, and he doesn’t even expect to make the ballot in every state. So, what exactly is the point here?

Asked about this a few months ago, Nader said, “What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people. And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties.”

Is it me, or is this wildly unpersuasive? Major parties can and do bring young people into the process; in fact, Barack Obama seems to be pretty good at it. For that matter, Nader’s multiple efforts have never affected election standards, and his campaigns have generally done a poor job of promoting progressive ideas, instead focusing on his personal disdain for the two major parties.

Yes, I suppose Nader could certainly “tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties,” but isn’t that a pretty shallow reason to launch four consecutive presidential bids?

Nader insisted this morning that there’s a real hunger in the country for a third-party candidate, but there’s ample evidence to the contrary.

To be sure, it’s likely that Nader’s ability to influence election results has passed. After “peaking” in 2000, with 2.7% of the popular vote, Nader dropped to 0.38% in 2004 (which was even worse than the 0.7% he garnered in 1996). It stands to reason that he’ll fare no better in 2008.

But given all of this, why bother? Why would someone with an impressive legacy on behalf of consumers take additional steps to make his enemies happy, his allies resentful, and his reputation tarnished?

A five-cent psychological analysis is that Nader needs these runs to affirm his purpose and self-identity. What they need is a “Senior Circuit” for politics like they have in golf. It’s for players who can’t really compete anymore but love to play the game. He’s not the only person to play in this league and when he’s running, he feels like like he’s winning. Whenever someone is talking about him, or when he gets on Met the Press, he’s “winning.” He’s like an actor long past his prime but gets the occassional small part. Even though it doesn’t make sense to us, it makes sense to him.

  • If there is a sentiment to reject both parties, it seems to be a demographic Obama plays well. This kind of shatters the myth behind “Unity ’08” – to say nothing of Nader’s delusion. The shorter Nader seems to read: People are tired of the animosity between the 2 parties – For the sake of unity, they want someone detested by all. And since we already have that with the Bush regime, it’s impossible to find a shred of logic in Nader’s candidacy.

  • A five-cent psychological analysis is that Nader needs these runs to affirm his purpose and self-identity.

    No. Nader knows he tipped the 2000 vote to Bush. The Dems are in position to win the White House. Nader is either a GOP tool (my bet) or he hates the democratic party so much that he”s willing to submit the country to 4 years of McCain.

  • So Nader says that “most Americans are disenchanted” in the process? Has anyone asked this dinosaur what caused the huge turnouts in the Dem primaries this year? Someone needs to drop a Corvair on him….

  • I thought I was reading The Onion headlines (a website I just left). And please don’t drop a Corvair, or any air-cooled VW on him, those cars are way too wonderful.

  • Like many of you my first reaction was “NOOOOOOOOOOOoooooo!!!!”

    But as I listened to him this morning I softened up a little.

    Nader wants to use his candidacy to help organize people to force congress in the right direction. This morning he mentioned the 300:1 Palestinian to Isreali civilian death ratio in the middle east. You aren’t going to hear that from a major party candidate.

    Yes it’s true he cost Gore the presidency. But the blame really rests with the 50 million douchebags who voted for Bush. Besides, 2008 is not going to be like 2000. In 2000 the meme about Gore and Bush was that they were Coke and Pepsi. That kept the race artificially close. This year is not going to be close. McCain will be lucky to win Arizona in the general, and it might just be a 49 state Obama blow-out everywhere else.

    Setting what happened in 2000 aside, I think Nader can do more good than harm this year. Whatever happens, he will not cost Obama the presidency. Don’t be a bunch of haters and don’t look back.

  • “Bush nightmare”? It’s a liberal media concocted fabrication beleived by those who are easily brainwashed. We liberated two countries. We stopped terrorism in its tracks. The supreme court is on the right track. The demos would sellout our security, cripple our energy companies, open the borders to ignorant trespassers, expand the free lunch to those who long ago bailed out on their individual responsibilities. It is a pleasure to see them implode on race and gender. Dangerous hypocrites all.

  • I’m all for this, myself. Anything that takes a single vote away from the Hillary/Obama socialist trainwreck that would destroy the country is fine with me!

  • Nader has had a hand in every good thing that’s come out of Washington
    during his lifetime. He is easily the brightest and most caring of anyone
    running. He has more insight into the rest of the peoples of the world
    than all the rest put together. He speaks more languages. No one else
    has a consistant plan to do much of anything. Since when do people in
    the USA vote for the lesser of evils and spend huge amounts of time,
    money and verbal drool condemning someone that’s obviously good. That
    would be that unpardonable sin that’s so egregiously missunderstood
    in the New Testement. Maybe this time Al Gore won’t cost Ralph the
    election.

  • Nader said, “What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people. And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties.”

    Yeah, I know taking money from Republican groups last time out to help with ballot access sure showed how the process needs new rules, and sure made a progressive point.

    Nader still insists that Gore would have won easily in 2000 if only he had done everything Nader told him to do. “We had proposals that if Gore had picked up on, he would have landslided Bush,” Nader said.

    Why yes, Nader knew exactly what needed to be done – sheer brilliance both in policy and tactics — much better than Gore could do following his own advice. Which is why Gore got 49% and Nader got 3%, right?

    what a maroon.

  • Nader has a point. Fundamentally the two primary parties are ruled more by “corporatism” than anything else translating to more of what we’ve been subjected too since Reagan.

    I would like to see more viable parties than just the two – Progressive, Conservative, Libertarian, etc.

    Only then, when there isn’t this “cornering” of the political market (with the corporate culture pulling the strings), will we rid ourselves of partisan politics and “the people” having no true representation in Washington.

  • We do not need Ralph Nader acting as the spoiler to take away votes for either side. My advice would be for Mr. Nader to seek a therapist; he seems to think he is some knight in shing armor when in fact he is a relic of the past. Anyone who would throw away their valuable vote for Nader also throws away their right to complain once the election returns are final. Mr. Nader brings nothing to the table, but can possibly take away a great deal. Mr. Nader, please go away and . . . well, just go away!

  • Obama has too serious an appeal to the young, independent and disaffected that Nader effectively has no constituency.

    Nader’s glory days are far enough in the past that none of the young know what he’s famous for other than spoiling the 2000 and subjecting them to 8 years of Bush. He ain’t going to get the youth vote nor the Green vote since 4 years of McCain would shoot the interests of both groups in the foot. Nader’s in Lyndon LaRouche-land.

  • Ralph Nader is as much about self-aggrandizement as anything else. Notice that he says we yearn for a third party candidate…not a third party. I would love to see a third (or fourth or fifth) serious party. Then again, i’d like to see 50 Senators elected “at large” by instant runoff elections, instant runoffs in the primaries, and proportional representation…so i’m kind of a kook.

    Ralph seems to think that the way to build a third party is to nominate him late in the game every four years. He’s wrong. The way to build a third party would be to organize at the grass roots and work towards electing local politicians first. That way as you move up the ladder you can point to accomplishments on lower rungs. And it would be easier for a third party candidate to win school board and city council seats than the presidency in a country where people think that if they don’t like one party’s candidate then the must vote for the other party’s candidate. (I call it “the Simpsons electoral theory” after Homer’s quote in the ’96 Treehouse of Horrors episode that ends with him saying, “Don’t blame me, i voted for Kodos.”)

  • “He says most Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties…”

    … which is why the Democratic primaries have had record turnouts.

    “…and that none of the presidential contenders are addressing ways to stem corporate crime and Pentagon waste…”

    … not that getting Republicans out of office helps with either of those problems, not to mention ending the war.

    “…and promote labor rights.”

    … which is why unions such as the SEIU (1.9 million members) have been endorsing Obama. Yeesh.

  • Petorado, Obama only has appeal to the STUPID young people who are following him like a rockstar, and do not care that he’s not actually said anything.

    He wants “Change”. What change? What is that change? He hasn’t said. Nobody knows! Is “change” always good? Hugo Chavez brought “change” in Venezuela. Was that good?

    Right now, when you turn on your light switch, the light comes on. Turn on the faucet, water comes out. Go to the gas station, there’s gas. Do you want that to “change”?

    What is “change”? And why is it assumed to be good change, when he won’t even say what it is?

    This is why I’m so happy that Nader is in this. Anything that keeps people off the Obama blind-worship bandwagon.

  • The only thing Nader has left is his ego. He may have had things to day and do 30 years ago, but he is now largely irrelevant, and if his name value wasn’t enough to get some harried TV producer who needs a “consumer advocate” on short notice to remember to call him, he’d be doing nothing at all.

    Ralph Nader: a man waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy past his 15 minutes, and too desperate to get it back. What a pathetic putz he has become. The only thing more pathetic being the morons who will vote for him.

  • Wow. Comments 7 & 8 are similar. Interesting coincidence.

    open the borders to ignorant trespassers

    What’s wrong with just saying “trespassers?” Did you have to throw “ignorant” in there too #7? You don’t know what they know or don’t know, and you don’t know what it’s like to be them.

  • Hey, V Raxcer (#7( – can I have some of what you’re snorting??? You just keep doing that, boy. With 10,000 real comedians out of work, it’s funny to watch someone who doesn’t know he’s one of them.

  • Maybe Nader will cost McCain-Lieberman the election this time around, since many believe that he cost Gore-Lieberman the election in 2000.

  • Nader is not an intentional Republican shill. He has indeed had that effect, but he’s clearly still pro-consumer and pro-labor in his intentions.

    More to the point, however, he would have accomplished so many more of his goals if he had worked within the Democratic party to change it, or at least bend it in his direction, rather than working outside it and against it. In sharp contradiction to his views, there was a huge difference between Gore and Bush and it made a great difference who won. I’ll grant that there is way too much corporate influence in both parties, but Gore and Nader share lots of opinions, and Nader probably could have traded his support for concessions on some of the remaining differences. Not all, for sure, but look what we got instead with Bush. We’ve got a Supreme Court that set a lot of proconsumer and pro-environment regulation and oversight back a generation, not to mention massive judicial, legislative, and executive losses in civil rights, privacy, electoral law, and lots more.

    Nader has become a bad idea whose time has passed, which is a sad end to an otherwise impressive career.

  • What (post 16) is truly a moron, and probably young, as he doesn’t seem to remember the ‘change’ we received from the Bush/Cheney energy initiatives, top secret to this day, that brought gasoline from $1.00 a gallon to $3. Or the rolling blackouts throughout California courtesy of Enron policy trying to extort the taxpayers. And not all faucets produce water anymore shit-for-brains, there are many places where the water is simply gone. That’s the change your heros on the Right have brought us.Go Away.

  • He wants “Change”. What change? What is that change? He hasn’t said. Nobody knows!

    No, only the people who are too fucking stupid to listen to his speeches or read the incredibly detailed proposals he has on his website don’t know what he wants to do. The rest of us are fully informed.

  • We just have to hope he won’t make a difference in any state, as he did in the tragic election of 2000.

    I find it difficult to put on my Nader hate-hat, because every time I hear him speak on the issues he makes a lot of sense and dares to say what no Democrat does. He’s a true progressive, and he reminds us all of what the country should be doing and isn’t, and won’t.

    When he talks politics, I tune him out. That’s not his forte.

    I won’t speculate about why he’s doing this. I can’t get inside his head.

    He can be a positive force just by talking about the issues. The truth can’t hurt, can it?

    But the people who waste their votes on him can hurt. Obama has to appeal to these voters, to persuade them that a vote for Nader is, in fact, a vote against progressivism. It’s a vote for four more years of Bush. Fortunately, Obama is very good at this kind of thing. Gore and Kerry were not.

  • I find it amusing how the Obama leftists here are the ones who descend into the realm of profanity and vicious personal attacks. I thought the left was supposed to be all pot smoke and love?

    Why don’t you just go to China, or Venezuela, you’ll get the sort of government you want, we’ll be rid of you, everyone will be happy.

  • Come autumn, assuming that Obama ends up squaring off against “volatile old-guy, Bush-hugging, more of the same” McCain, I expect that a simple call for “change” without a single specific would strike many voters as more than enough detail to persuade them to vote against McCain.

  • If Nader actually wanted to influence anything he should have tried it a long time ago.
    In fact, it might have been interesting to have alternative ‘loose cannon’ debates with Nader, Paul, Kucinich, even Edwards once it became clear the corporate media were freezing him out of the ‘campaign’; candidates with lots of support, interested in issues as opposed to the horse race. Internet-based, questions submitted by people, the candidates wouldn’t even have had to be in the same physical location.

  • Change huh?

    Let’s review the Senate voting records of McCain, Clinton, and Obama and try to determine what “change” we might expect.

    Clinton, Obama, and McCain all voted in favor of…. (sing along with me)

    …the “Patriot” Act, which is anything but patriotic or constitutional.

    …the Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which unconstitutionally grants Herr Bush the discretion to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called “other conditions.” The “law” also grants the Dictator-In-Chief authority to commandeer the National Guard without congressional approval or the approval of the Governors for use as a police force within the borders of the United States, including using Guard Troops in other states for such purposes.

    …the Real ID Act of 2005 which mandated that all states’ drivers licenses conform to a new National ID standard, complete with micro-chip embedding. Real ID for drivers licenses takes effect in 2009, while passports are already Real ID compliant as of 2005.

    …$500+ billion to continue the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq (and Dick’s Private Empire).

    And lastly, Clinton, Obama, and McCain all voted against immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

    I wouldn’t expect too much change in these areas.

  • “McCain will be lucky to win Arizona in the general, and it might just be a 49 state Obama blow-out everywhere else.”

    While I’d like to be as optimistic as you are, I’m not sure what you are saying is going to come true. What makes you think McCain is going to lose so badly?

  • WTF! # 30.
    On February 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am, what said:

    I find it amusing how the Obama leftists here are the ones who descend into the realm of profanity and vicious personal attacks. I thought the left was supposed to be all pot smoke and love?

    Why don’t you just go to China, or Venezuela, you’ll get the sort of government you want, we’ll be rid of you, everyone will be happy.

    This is too funny to take seriously but I’ll try. “Duh”!
    Now go back to wanking off on Bush/Cheny bumper stickers.

  • I will vote for Nader if Obama is nominated. Obama is much too conservative and way too religious for me. I have no sense of who he really is but I know he has been mealy-mouthed in the Senate and done nothing there to support his supposed goals for the country. Someone who votes “present” on women’s issues because they might be controversial isn’t going to shake things up as president.

    By the way, Gore won the election in 2000. You know who took it away and it wasn’t Nader.

    This is a democracy. That means people like Nader can run regardless of their electability and people like me can vote for him. When this becomes a dictatorship in which all progressives must vote for Obama, it will be too late for any audacity to save hope.

  • Frank Rich’s brilliant column on Clinton is titled:
    The Audacity of Hopelessness.
    Rich could have titled a piece on Nader or McCain:
    The Audacity of Industrial-Strength Hopelessness.

    In all three cases above: Clinton, McCain, and Nader, there is no there– there, there, or there.
    All are old pols armed only with Ponzi schemes. None realize history’s wave has left them in a backwater ditch. They are wrecks in the sea wreck.

    I will enjoy watching their egos get batted and bruised in the days ahead. They’ve earned their clubbing. They wail about the young people’s passion. They cry about cults. They are like zombies drooling on about living people having a hot pulse and a bright future. The desperate spin shows that none will go into the good night readily. Clinton will go to hatchet first. Then McCain will get flayed in the general. McNader? He is a gaunt afterthought: a noiseless fart in a windy place. No one even will bother to sniff…

    All three are past tense prodigies….
    All three matter not.
    All three will meet their doom on schedule.

  • If, after 2000–no wait, after Mr. Perot launched Gov. Clinton into the white house–Americans had spent half the energy they spent kibitzing about how spoilers spoil and other ad hominem rejoinders to their fellow Americans exercising their rights, and instead used it to fashion an electoral system that was the smallest bit better, we could have ending this nonsensical, counter-productive, irrelevant bickering years ago. No, we have to complain every four years, then go back to doing nothing. Every cycle.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting‘http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#See_also

    As Hon. Sen. Obama likes to say, it isn’t that there is a dearth of good ideas in this country….

  • Lex is on the right track.

    I’d love to be able to vote for a Nader without having to concern myself with delivering the Supreme Court to hacks from the right, but the electorate learned in 2000 that we can’t afford to do so without runoffs.

    If any private citizen has the knowledge and skill to deliver results on any single issue that he sets his mind to, it’s Nader. Instead of running for President, I wish he’d set his mind to helping us have runoff elections. With this goal achieved, the progressive movement would take off beyond his (and our) wildest expectations.

  • RE:What, #17, #30:

    If you don’t want to be personally attacked, state your points without using personal attacks. Just a suggestion.

  • Please everybody: IGNORE ‘what’, ‘Sherrod Smith’ and ‘V Racer’ and posters like them. They are not worth wasting your typing skills on. Read their comment, roll your eyes – if you must -, but don’t give them the gratification of debating their ignorant views.

    ‘Lex’ in post # 14 actually brought up a good point about what Nader should be doing: such as starting at the ground level and elect officials at City, County, and State level.

    I read Nader’s ‘exploratory’ website, before he announced, and that is what he is proposing. I actually agree with his philosophy as explained on his website. I did send him a letter that I would support his efforts of getting 1000 people in each congressional district to work towards change. I wrote him that I would be willing to donate to this cause, but in the event he decided to run in the 2008 presidential race, I wouldn’t give him a dime and would only result in me giving more to whoever wins the democratic nomination. I urged him to consider becoming a spokes person for change and educate people in how what the current crop of Democratic candidates has to offer is far superior to anything the Republicans have to offer (This was before we were down to 2 candidates in each race)

    His response: A canned ‘thank you’ for my interest in his cause.

    Either way, Nader does have good ideas, it’s unfortunate that he tarnishes his reputation by being a spoiler once again. In short I have no respect for him, or anybody else who thinks they can change the country by allowing the Republicans to stay in power, or to insinuate that both parties are more of the same.

    Cognitive Dissonance. I thought that was a conservative traits, I guess some so-called progressives have that affliction as well. Extreme left wingers aren’t all that different from extreme right wingers after all.

  • JKap, @33

    And, during those same 4 years, Nader did… what? Squat. Squat and wait till the next cycle. At least Edwards, when he got knocked out after ’04, got to work on his Poverty Centre. Gore, when he got knocked out in ’00 went to work on issues of global warming. Nader? He’s like an old grandpa with gout; not a positive word will come out of his mouth, it’s all bitch, bitch, bitch about what *other people* are doing wrong.

    20-30 yrs ago, he was my hero for the work he did on consumer protection. Now? He’s a spent force; a joke. The only thing that’s not funny is that, through his own pigheadedness (in running against Gore), he’d seen half of those protections removed again by the Bush cabal.

  • From Cicero’s First Oration Against Catiline: “How long, O Catiline, must we uphold thine abuses?”

    Henry II’s view of Thomas Becket: “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”

    Our nation’s view of Ralph Nader: “Go fuck yourself!”

  • My thoughts about Nader’s rationale for running for President:
    > Nader apparently has adopted the strategy that he needs to “destroy the village in order to save it.” Thing is, he does not have the political fire-power to do so (destroy or save).

    > I am hard-pressed to understand why a person who gained less than one half of one percent of the vote in the 2004 election merits a platform on the highest-rated Sunday morning bobble head show to announce another run for the presidency. Who cares if Nader is running? [But, then I had to listen to Cokie Roberts – talk about your dinosaurs – opine that Obama has a bigger PR problem regarding public campaign financing than does John McCain. So, its pretty difficult to say I am shocked by the tone-deafness of those who produce and participate in these Beltway Conventional Wisdom blather-fests.] And, no, I do not really want to know if someone actually cares whether Nader is running. Mary, go ahead and waste your vote if you wish!

    > Nader speaks about all the “disenchanted” citizens, as if more than a tiny sliver actually line up completely with his views. He ignores the opposite sliver of the disenchanted masses that is vehemently opposed to all he stands for. Nader appears to be delusional about the large number in the middle who are not likely to risk voting for him in such an important election even if they are sympathetic to some of his views. To those who are not completely sympathetic to his views, his tilting at the presidential windmill is neither inspiring nor endearing. It simply makes him look like a kooky narcissist.

    > If Ralph REALLY cared about engaging young people and influencing election standards, it seems to me he would be working at the grassroots level to build infrastructure. He would be working, as Lex noted, to build a movement or a party in the years between presidential elections. He would be developing clout that is not solely rooted in his personality. But he does not seem to do this. So, it is hard for me to appreciate either his wisdome or his sincerity in all this.

    > Ralph has become like a troll to this site. I think the best way to deal with him is simply to ignore him. Allow him his civil right to run, speak out, make his own decisions about how he can best be a positive force in the political discourse of his country. It is possible that he may actually provide some food for thought now and then, but when it is time to vote – IGNORE HIM.

  • Nader is a pathetic egomaniac that has caused more harm to progressive movements in this country than any other single individual. He has discredited the Green Party already, and now is trying to prevent Obama from forming a working bipartisan movement in Washington. Ralph, please stop this nonsense and let this country heal from the damage you have already caused. Go use your millions to retire and let us start making real progress.

  • I know we shouldn’t feed trolls, but Jesus Christ on a bike, these people piss me off.

    You’ve had control of every lever of power since 1996, including from 2000-2006 the executive and the legislature, and all you’ve done is fuck everything up. You’ve achieved nothing positive at all. Nothing. Your idiot coke-head in-bred aristocrat “president” has record low approval ratings, the country is in debt up to the eyeballs, and the world hates America. This is the legacy of what is laughingly known as “conservatism”.

    You’ve had your chance, you blew it, now shut up and fuck off.

    I just needed to get that off my chest.

  • Perhaps Nader is hanging in there hoping to live long enough after the Republicans’ complete ruination of America to see himself arising from the ashes like a Phoenix. Nader has every right to run if he can get on the ballot, and each citizen has a right to vote for whom they please, but I can’t for the life of me but wonder what any voter would expect to gain by casting what will be essentially a losing vote for him unless they are opposed in general to any Democrat taking the white house.

  • If Nader had pushed for instant runoff voting for the past decade, by every means at his disposal, he’d have done all of us a great favor and would have hastened the day when we break free of the two-party system. That is the key to cut the Gordian knot of the status quo and open our political discourse to a wider array of viewpoints. But, like all mail-in voting, it’s an improvement so obvious on its face that we can count on it being ignored. What I wouldn’t give to live in a rational world!

  • Mary@37 said By the way, Gore won the election in 2000. You know who took it away and it wasn’t Nader.

    Succinct and dispositive. At least at CB & Drum, people have spent way more time trashing Nader & his voters, than they did SCOTUS and the Fla. criminals. Curious and counterproductive. Maybe it is a way of denying our shame that we have not dragged the bastards out of the WH. It is still not proven that there is anything that they can do that would be the last straw. The real scoundrels are probably still laughing about that, when they are not busy figuring out how to subvert the next election. I wonder if the terms ‘hattrick’ or ‘threepeat’ ever come up.

  • Screw Nader. I don’t care what he’s done in the name of public safety, I hold him personally responsible for the past eight years of GOP rule.

  • If Nader had such good advise for Gore “Gore would have won easily in 2000 if only he had done everything Nader told him to do” Why didn’t he take his own advice instead of getting 3% of the vote??

  • Ed Stephan said:
    From Cicero’s First Oration Against Catiline: “How long, O Catiline, must we uphold thine abuses?”
    Henry II’s view of Thomas Becket: “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”
    Our nation’s view of Ralph Nader: “Go fuck yourself!”

    Very nice Ed.
    Truly there is something to be said for modern brevity.

  • I’ve said it (twice) before, I’ll say it again: Nader has a LEGISLATIVE agenda; he should be running for congress, not president. He might make a pretty good Senator and a hell of a congressman.

    Of course, then he’d have show up more than every four years. And convince people who weren’t naturally inclined towards him that he was their best representative. And if elected, negotiate a sea of contradictory demands and obstructionist tactics to get something done. You know, like one does if one actually wants to accomplish something, rather than just complain about it.

    On second thought, Ralph, you’re right — garnering a tiny fraction of the vote every four years is a MUCH better way to effect change in Washington.

  • This is still a win-win-win-win election, sort of… as long as it is true that Huckabee doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell (he would try to turn the country into a theocracy which would be incredibly, incredibly bad, for EVERYONE).

    Actual preferences aside… Obama, Clinton, McCain, or Nader would all be WAAAAAY better than the dangerous incompetent administration we’ve had over the last two terms. Thank goodness Romney is out. He would have (more effectively and efficiently mind you) fucked things up even more than they already are.

  • Posters on this thread like V Racer, and others, are spoon fed their news, information, and talking points from the right wing media. Completely delusional, these people are as cut off from main street Americans, as are their out of touch info pushers: Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter (aka Arthur Coltrane), Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, James Dobson, etc. It is generally known what the American public, and the world, think about the Bush administration and its policies over the last 2 terms. You can’t just make that shit up. The track record is worse than bad – and V Racer and others are still listing all the “great things” that these folks have done, and what they stand for. How far out of the main stream can you possibly be? These people are completely out of options, due to their extreme, stupid, dangerous positions. They hate all their possibilities: Obama, Clinton, Nader AND McCain and Huckabee. They are still upset that their ideal fascist leader didn’t get enough votes.

  • I totally agree with you, Dash. Nader should run for the congress, not the presidency. When you listen to and look at him – he could be a congressman. He’s obviously brave and outspoken enough to possibly influence and affect change for the things he believes in, in government, but he’ll never be elected president.

    But… isn’t he smart enough to know that his platform fits a congressional bid better?

    I’m not sure he’s interested in a full time job. Quadrennial publicity for his cause and the occasional book seem to be his method and occupation.

  • You all miss the point. Without proportional representation, all but the best-funded third-party candidates (Bloomberg could be interesting in this regard) don’t add viable alternatives but rather take votes away from the candidate anyone supporting them would pick second, thereby helping said supporters’ least-preferred choice.

    Nader has done a lot of good, but he tarnishes his legacy with each run in such critical times. Kind of like Bill Clinton sullying his the past few months with his overly large presence for his “wife’s” campaign. He had eight years. Ever heard of golf?

    I saw Nader speak once, and it was a wonderful speech. But he’s so much more effective behind the scenes doing what he does best than he is getting his 2 percent.

  • Just wanted to point out that in every method of statewide recount in Florida, Al Gore came out ahead, WINNER TAKE ALL. Unfortunately, this was not found ’till after the Supreme Court had appointed Dubya president because Gore only wanted a recount in a couple of counties. Nader suggested the statwide recount but Gore wasn’t interested.

    • Comments are closed.