However, I think that his running again is a mistake, and that most effort spent on Presidential politics is a waste of energy right now.

The U.S. political situation is a difficult one, and one needs a long-range strategy to make any headway:

• Where does one want to go?
  
• What are the balance of forces?
  
• What options are available, and which are the most promising?

The Internet is an unprecedented tool, allowing motivated groups to bypass the mainstream media. It's possible to have virtual think tanks, as here at Gristmill. There are more opportunities now than I've seen in 30 years.

So why bother with Nader for president, either pro or con? Just vote Democrat and get on with more important things.

In the meantime, work with anyone who shares your position on specific issues.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

As long as Democrats keep accepting donations from Corporate entities, the politicians are not going stand up for you or me.  Everyone needs to wake up on this issue!  We need a third party to rise up and stand up for us!

Let me ask this question to illustrate the point on how little today's politicians represent us.  Who was the last President to make significant effort to support for a war on poverty, establish a national healthcare system, established the Environmental Protection Agency and supported consumer rights?  Richard Nixon!  This is a far drop from todays values of politicians, either Republican or Democrats isn't it?

Ralph Nader is the best thing to happen to America! He has fought for the little man all of his life.  PLEASE, RUN RALPH RUN!!!!!

"I, John McCain, do solemnly swear..."

Honestly, what is wrong with you people?

    At the time he was running as the nominee of the Green Party.  He never (in my opinion) did much to help build the party, it was always about him.

    By 2004, my choices were voting for a bad Democrat or a true Green (not NADER!!).  I voted for Kerry (very reluctantly, but in VA, where it might have mattered).

    This year I will vote with reluctance for...
I honestly dunno yet, though I am leaning towards Obama (the Democratic nominee) who is another centrist Democrat.  But I don't have any false hopes.

    Dear GreenGuy12312005,

         If you want to build a third party stay as far away from Nader as you can.  He has not interest in doing so, he is only about his ego.  And frankly, on social issues, he ain't even that progressive.  Your criticisms of the two major parties are correct.

         I agree with Bart on this one.

patrick in Beijing

I am just looking for some choices here as well.  Why is it that people are so opposed to additional choices for president?  Surely, with all of the complex issues surrounding this country, our choices should not be one or the other?  

Unfortunately, the Democrats are posturing against democracy by trying to keep additional choices off the menu.  I don't want steak or chicken.  I want lasagna.

A third-party candidate for president will always be a spoiler.  That's the way the system is set up.  You can't change it in one fell swoop from the top.  Money, entrenched power, and entrenched organization will prevent that from happening.

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

Much more effective:  rebuild the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.  It's happening in many places as we speak.

He's a bit arrogant, but seems like a nice guy overall. Gore should have been able to defeat George Bush regardless, so I can't blame Nader for the results of the 2000 election.

However, I'd take him a whole lot more seriously -- well, I'd take him seriously -- if he would pick a party and stick with it. I mean, really, what's with running as the Green Party candidate, but not joining the Green Party?! And what's with running as a Green during one election, but not running as a Green now? Why didn't he participate in the Green Party primary this year? Why run as an independent? Why wait to see what the Democrats have to offer? Does he want to build a real and functional third party? Or will he only be happy if he builds a Nader Party and gets to be their candidate -- not bothering with a primary -- every four years? What does Ralph Nader want? Right now it looks like he just wants to help Republicans maintain control of the U.S. Presidency.

I have a great deal of respect for Nader dedicating his life to various activist causes, but he's been notably unsuccessful as an electoral candidate.  If he chooses to run he will inevitably siphon off some votes.  However, I suspect that he will have even less of an impact this time than in 2004.  Even if the election is as close as it was in 2000, he won't gain enough votes in swing states to make much of a difference . . . unless.

Unless we create a tempest in a teapot.  Nader's best strategy is to rekindle the "should he run?" debate.  Why play?  Of course he has the right to run.  Democratic Party officials should do absolutely nothing (unlike in 2004) to get in his way, e.g., by obstructing his getting on the ballot or by attacking him in the press.  Just ignore him.  

If the future is like the past, some Republican operatives will see advantage in pumping up a left-leaning third party candidacy.  So I hope that muckraking journalists such as Talking Points Memo will keep an eye on the money trail and blogospheric trolls.

That said, I don't see why we need to stir up a whole bunch of drama about this.  Nader has a right to freedom of expression and association.  The Democratic nominee, for better or worse, will be fairly moderate on most issues.  Nevertheless, the Republicans simply cannot be allowed to win again.  

Those who don't buy into that paradigm will vote for a third-party candidate regardless of what you or I say.  And that's fine.  Why can't we all respect each other for our differences and go about our business?  After all, the election won't be won or lost by a handful of lefties -- it will be with the moderate middle.  That's where Rove and Co. will be focusing.  Keep your eye on the prize, folks!

So if you Nader boosters want to go for it, no problem.  

The neocorporats would rather see Barack or Hillary president than have that happen.  Their mouthpieces keep saying that.  The vomiting talking heads on their media outlets.

Throw the election to McCain. If you can. Barack will be hard to beat even without the Nader faction.  Punish democrats for the BJ once again.  Hehey.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

If Ralph runs, we could potentially lose Obama as our pres (LCV score in the 80s, I believe) and end up with McCain (LCV score of 0).  I hope Nader supporters put this in perspective.  Would we have been better off with Gore as president instead of Bush in 2000?  I rest my case.

Now that we have that covered, let me say that Nader running for President redefines absurdity. I am behind Obama, not because he will raise the dead or initiative the millenium of perfect justice and peace.  I am behind him because (1) His victory in the nomination process will finally drive a stake in the heart of Team Clinton. (2) That I think he will give us the best opportunities to make progress on a whole range of policies. The burden - however - is on us. As FDR once said to a delegation of people who were lobbying him, "I agree with you. Now go out there and make me agree with you." That will be our - not Obama's - job should he win the election against the hell spawned forces of McCain.

I will be a loyal supporter of Obama until January 20, 2009. Then we will see what we will see. We environmentalists need to become much more cynical and hard nosed about our political decisions. Quit acting like babies.

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."        ~George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman" 1903

I respect all that Ralph has done over the years, but -- oh God, please -- don't run in '08, Ralph.  Go agitate, go rake mud, go try to build up the Green Party, go try to get states to adopt instant-runoff voting, go ask hard questions of the Powers that Be ... but don't run.

Please.

in the 60's Clean Water act, Air .ect.ect!!!

Nader lead efforts for the First Earth day with many others..

Democrats Clinton and Gore pushed Nafta, GATT and other environement disasters..

Obam is pro  Nuclear power!!

Greens are looking for 5% for matching FUTURE races. 5% is a win for Greens.

It NOT about Nader..it about a GREEN Party!

He said during his messianic campaign that he saw no difference between the Democrat Gore or Republican Bush candidates.  The rampant fool will never pay for what he was instrumental in causing.

John McCormick

Message (1) to Nader-obsessives: Nader will not "steal votes" from Obama/ Clinton.  Nobody is obliged to vote for Nader, and neither Obama nor Clinton are entitled to anyone's votes.  The ideas that people are obliged to vote for Nader if he runs, and that Democratic Party Presidential candidates are entitled to votes are, then, urban legends.

Message (2) to Nader-obsessives: Back in 2000, Nader wanted to "hurt the Democrats" because the Democrats were running on a neoliberal party line.  Neoliberalism is the party line of that fraction of capital that would rather see Earth's ecosystems fatally compromised than experience a slight dip in the profit rate.  If you support neoliberal politicians, you support neoliberalism.  This is what made, and makes, Nader angry.  It should make you angry, too, if you care about the future of Planet Earth.

Message (3) to Nader-obsessives: Your argument that Nader-voters would vote for the Democrat if Nader weren't running is countered by Nader's argument that a lot more people are pulled into American democracy by his candidacy than would otherwise participate.  There's no way of proving who's right between these two positions.  There is, then, no proof that Nader-voters would vote for the Democrat if they were deprived of voter choice.

Message (4) to Nader-obsessives: Saying that Nader is "slimy" or "arrogant" or any other playground names is missing the point.  Voting does not serve you if you cannot vote for whomever is the best candidate, and the best candidate is not the least "slimy" or "arrogant" candidate but, rather, the candidate (and his/her appointed team) who will give us the best policies.  Seriously: if you are electing people to the White House so they can be "un-slimy" or "humble," it says more about you than it says anything about Nader.  Did you think you were electing someone to the post of "saint"?

Message (5) to Nader-obsessives: Waiting for instant runoff voting before voting for the best candidate means you will never vote for the best candidate.  You will only wait.

Message (6) to Nader-obsessives: A demand that the Green Party only field candidates for local offices is a demand that the Green Party give up on the publicity that a Presidential candidate brings, which will probably be the difference between ballot status and no ballot status in dozens of states.  Basically you are demanding that the Green Party die so that the public can be deprived of the Green Party as a voter choice.  Is this a realistic demand?

Message (7) to Nader-obsessives: Claiming that "Nader won't win" falls under the argumentative fallacy of "self-fulfilling prophesy."  Nader would win if enough people were to vote for Nader, and no second-guessing of the election outcome can eliminate this possibility.

Message (8) to Nader-obsessives: Insisting that your candidate have "political experience" of the kind Nader doesn't have is a misjudging of the task of being President.  Eight years of the George W. Bush Preaidency and eight years of the Ronald W. Reagan Presidency should have taught you that any fool can be President.  What matters about a Nader candidacy are two things: 1) what kind of policy would we see from a Nader Presidency, and 2) what kind of political team can we expect Ralph Nader to appoint were he to be elected President?

Message (9) to Nader-obsessives: supporting a reactionary Democrat against a reactionary Republican does not make you a "liberal."  It makes you a reactionary.  Claims that "I will support the right-wing Democrat until he/she is inaugurated, and then re-join the Left thereafter" are fatuous, as people who argue thusly will not stop employing "lesser of two evils" rationales just because a Democrat is inaugurated into the White House.  

For some people, this is the scariest thing about having a reactionary Democrat in the White House.  At least with a Republican in the White House there is a good chance that the Democrats will stay pissed off, and might even continue to agitate for social change.  With a Democrat in the White House, we might imagine, Democrats will trust that their politicians will "do the right thing" regardless of what good or bad things they do.  This is, of course, hypothetical reasoning; realities may differ.

That having been said, American political realities look pretty grim.  The room for maneuver in Presidential elections is rather low; this reality is made worse by the Electoral College, which narrows the range of meaningful "critical votes" to those which are cast in "swing states."  It might be possible that a Barack Obama Presidency could produce good things, although this is dependent upon whether Obama can be made to diverge from the neoliberal "Washington Consensus" in important ways.  (It is easy to expect a Clinton or McCain Presidency to be more neoliberalism.)  America's place on the learning curve is in serious need of improvement.  What is needed, far more than any Presidential candidate, and far more than any form of cheerleading for any particular candidate, is political education.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

Ralph Nader is the reason hundreds of thousands of people have died or been seriously injured in Iraq.

Message (10) to Nader-obsessives: Nader is not responsible for Bush's "election."  Bush was "elected" by the Supreme Court in 2000 with the blessings of Katherine Harris (who was rewarded for her deed with a seat on the Council on Foreign Relations), and Bush was "elected" by Ohio's hacked Diebold voting machines in 2004 with the blessings of Ken Blackwell.  Nader is also not responsible for Democratic Party complicity in 1) refusing to investigate or protest the 2000 Florida vote recount, or 2) pass Bush's initiatives in Congress.  Therefore, Nader is not responsible for Bush's misdeeds.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

Ernie Kovaks had a Corvair station wagon...and he was a smart guy!   I think Bob Lutz should cold cock Nader if they ever meet on the street.

http://www.buyoldcars.com/images/1962_chevy_corvair/62_Ch ...

Someone who writes 2000+ word blog comments is in an odd position to call others "obsessives."

My recurring concern is with the debasement of the political process.  American political argument is generally banal, and it's high time we encouraged people to move up the learning curve rather than just spitting out little quips like this one.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

If I have the anti-Nader argument right, it is: "Ralph Nader shouldn't run, because people that think he represents them will vote for him. The consequence is that the greater of two evils will get elected."  

I have this to say in reply: Who the hell are you to suppress who I get to vote for? YOU HAVE NO RIGHT. My vote is mine, and it is my voice in a Democracy (or at least whatever is left of the one that used to be here).

And before you get on your "pragmatist" high horse, think about this - if you always go for the lesser of 2 evils, you still get more evil, just a little more slowly. If you vote for what you think is good, then you may lose most of the time - but your voice, and your values are recognized. When that odd time when your views pull through, you've done a small good, rather than perpetuated a lesser evil.

FACT: If Nader runs, the democratic candidate will get less votes.

Now if you think either of these two statements are wrong, then you aren't being rational.

-David Ahlport

Then the Green Party will actually lose even more of what little popular support it currently has.

-David Ahlport

FACT: If Nader runs, he will not be elected in the general election.

This is a prediction.  Predictions are not facts.  

FACT: If Nader runs, the democratic candidate will get less votes.

This is a prediction, too, and an incomplete one at that.  Less votes than what?

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

If Nader does run, and the Democrats lose again to a slim margin.

Then the Green Party will actually lose even more of what little popular support it currently has.

This "thing to consider" runs contrary to past empirical observation.  The Green Party lost support in 2004 when Nader did not run as a Green, and gained support in 2000 when he did.  The identity of the election "winner" had nothing to do with the levbel of support for the Green Party.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

He is an intelligent person, great Ideas but at this point he is just a spoiler. If he had got in early and run as a Democrat, join em and then change em, I would have took him more serious.

I would vote for him in New York minute if I seriously thought he had a chance but to thwart McCain and his 100's years war he should stay out.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

Environment:
The handy Grist comparison of candidates shows little difference on the environmental platforms of  Clinton, McCain and Obama. In any case, they will be signing or vetoing legislation from congress, not drafting the bills.

Other issues:
Healthcare. There is no candidate advocating single-payer. This area will not change meaningfully.

Foreign Policy:
Some differences about when to get troops out of Iraq. But no one has put forward significant proposals on changing policies overall. (ie support for Israel, Saudi Arabia, South America policy etc.)

Trade:
No one is bailing out on WTO, NAFTA, etc.

Military Spending:
We spend more than the rest of the world combined. We buy $300mm jet fighters to fight.... umm, the martians maybe? No one is out to slash this corporate welfare program.

A vote for Ralph at least acknowledges that there is a key root cause common to many of the issues above. A vote for any of the other 3 just doesn't mean too much.

McCain won't be another shaved chimp, he might start a war with Iran though.  

Maybe the democratic party would finally get the green message with four more years of GOPeeing?  Trickling on us with tax breaks for the rich and subsidies for corporations to outsource jobs?

Risk another war, plus the Afghanistan and Iraq disasters cont9inuing for 100 years?  Why not?  Global climate change is more serious and neither party is going to do much about it, except make it worse with nukes, fuel farms, and lots more "clean" coal.  And lots of carbon trading for hedge funds to get richer on.

Revive the green party!  Run Ralph run.  Green is dead in the water right now.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Al Gore would have been predident if Nader's 97,000 votes had not been pulled from the democrats.

We are in the "entitlement" theory of voting here once again.  See message #1 above.

Besides, Gore won the Florida vote.  The Nader-obsessives, though, think Ralph is to be blamed for a bad Supreme Court decision, a rigged Florida vote-counting apparatus, and their own failure to protest the outcome.  

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

Why didn't Ralph Nader participate in the Green Party primary/caucus? There are only two parties in position to actually build a competitive third party, the Greens and the Libertarians. Ralph said we need a viable third party to take on the corporations. Wouldn't that be the Green Party?

By running as an independent, totally bypassing the primary/caucus process, Ralph not only MIGHT serve as a spoiler and take votes away from the Democratic candidate, he WILL serve as a spoiler and take votes away from a growing Green Party.

Why does Ralph Nader despise the Green Party? Why doesn't he join the Green Party and remain there long enough to create a strong third party? Running as an independent only weakens all potential third parties.

Can someone please explain Ralph Nader's reasons for not participating in the Green Party primary/caucus?

Dammit.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

Simple as that.

-David Ahlport

With that in mind, what exactly do commenters expect to accomplish by beating up on each other?  Okay, so snarkiness can be fun (in a mean-spirited, Jerry Springer kind of way), but what's the desired outcome?

As a case in point, does GreyFlcn think that by insulting those who are pro-Nader that he is going to win them over?  Or would he prefer to piss them off so much that they attack Obama as much as McCain?

This thread is exactly what Republicans want to see -- a food fight between the Naderites and Obamaites.  How is it that highly intelligent and environmentally committed folks could fall for such a banal trick?  It's like Lucy offering the football once again to Charlie Brown.

Political Suicide 101.

The trick being I don't really care who gets elected, just so long as it's not a Republican.

However we can save the fiddling for the Primaries.

When we get to the General Election, it's for Keeps.

It's a bit like someone going to Vegas, and betting their entire life savings at the Roulette Wheel where only 1 slot gives them a win.

It could happen. Sure.  But if you lose, the result will be devastating.

And frankly, we don't have time to fiddle while the world burns.

__

That said, what type of intelligent argument am I supposed to have?

Do I disagree with Nader's positions? No.

What I disagree with is the high-stakes long-shot gamble that makes it far easier for a Republican to win office.

__

I guess one argument you could make

China and India haven't quite fully developed their infrastructure.  They could instead "leap-frog" to cheaper and cleaner infrastructure, if we could show them the way.

A whole new generation of new coal and nuclear power plants are on the brink of being built (Or not)

We are at a unique time and place where what we do in the next 4 years will set the stage for the next 30 years.

And if a Republican gets in office, all of that would be a gigantically missed opportunity for dealing with climate change.

-David Ahlport

The fact is the corporate lobby is so entrenched in government as to be likened to a cancer that has spread to all the major organs and the lymphatic system. The patient is in stage four and the prognosis is terminal.

If Nader is going to be part of the recovery, if any form of Nadar chemo or radiation is still viable at this time, he should endorse and continue pushing his agenda,"that I feel is the correct one".

The general public does not understand the destructive nature of a corpocracy nor how close this one has drove us to the edge of collapse. If he could get the talking heads talking about it for a few months it would do no harm. However if an when it becomes apparant that he is not going to get even 10% of the popular vote he should get off the ticket and whoever he endorses should make a place for his message in His/Her platform.

I can only hope John Edwards endorces soon!

The best oncologist does the patient no good in a hospice situation. I fear we won't survive another four years in a corpocracy. Jefferson warned of it and as late as 61 Ike warned of the Industrial Military Complex.

The staffs of the three leading Predidental hopefuls only highlights the seriousness of the situation. I only hope that Obama is serous in his rhetoric to rid government of the corporate lobby. If John Edwards endorse's him it may lend a little credence to his promise.

I fear that to Nader it is not about the cause anymore but about ego and the man. His message is golden his intent is suspect at this point. He would have to know he has no serious chance to win and his effort will weaken the third party concept that I also adhere to.

It will be his choice to be part of the solution or part of the problem. If he puts his political aspirations above the cause this time he will have earned his reputation as a spoiler and of  running just for the sake of running.

If he gets in for the express purpose of obtaining a megaphone educating the public on the dangers of a corpocracy he has a legitimate place at the table, if he knows when to endorse and step aside.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

Why didn't Ralph Nader participate in the Green Party primary/caucus?

Nader was on the ballot in my state, California.

Why does Ralph Nader despise the Green Party? Why doesn't he join the Green Party and remain there long enough to create a strong third party? Running as an independent only weakens all potential third parties.

Nader's relationship to the Green Party isn't clear.  One thing to consider, though, is that the popular vote isn't binding on Green delegates, and so Green primaries are basically beauty contests.  Most of the GPUS, after all, is a Potemkin village.  The Green Party only has a meaningful constituency in four states: California, Illinois, New Mexico, and New York.  If the Green Party is to pretend to be a national party, then, it must throw up Potemkin village "Green Parties" in the other 46 states.

Getting the Green nomination, then, means winning the acclaim of the gatekeepers at the convention, which will (this year) take place this June in Chicago.  How meaningful is a Green Party with gatekeepers?

One of the main problems with a concept like the Green Party is that it seems to be asking the public to accept the Ten Key Values, and the platforms based upon them, as a precondition for voting Green.  This makes it look as if the Green Party is rejecting everyone who isn't (yet) on board with the Ten Key Values; i.e. they look like a party of purists.

As for Nader's situation, I don't know.  Maybe he's fulfilling a promise to his deceased dad that he'd never join a political party.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.

Message (11) to Nader-obsessives: The vote-counters do not add Nader's totals to the Republican candidate's totals.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

Sam: it's not easy trying to tell the truth about Nader's non-role in the outcomes of the 2000 and 2004 elections. People just don't want to hear it. Especially Democrats.

I think the Nader urban legends are based on one, foundational urban legend, which goes like this: The Republicans are evil neoconservatives and the Democrats are good liberals.  The truth of the matter is more like this: Both Republican and Democrat elites are neoliberals, and if there is any difference between them, it's that the elites must appear to take different positions on the issues in order to appear to cater to different rank-and-file constituencies.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

The building blocks of politics are parties, organizations and alliances. These he ignores.

I keep waiting for some sort of strategy or plan. Instead we get "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it any more." Such an approach may feel good, but it is no way to approach social change.

Historically we have models like the Fabian Society in Britain, the Communist Party (PCI) in Italy (1930s-70s), the New Deal in the US (1930s-70s), the conservative movement in the US (1970s-present).

Instead of thinking long-term, the candidacy of Nader forces us to talk about him individually ... again. What a waste.

Howard Zinn has a good post today on Election Madness:

... we have all been brought up to believe that voting is crucial in determining our destiny, that the most important act a citizen can engage in is to go to the polls and choose one of the two mediocrities who have already been chosen for us. It is a multiple choice test so narrow, so specious, that no self-respecting teacher would give it to students.

And sad to say, the Presidential contest has mesmerized liberals and radicals alike. We are all vulnerable.

... I'm talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.

But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.

Message (11) to Nader-obsessives: The vote-counters do not add Nader's totals to the Republican candidate's totals.

But it does subtract from Democratic candidate's totals.  Which is essentially the same thing.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/ ...

-David Ahlport

"One of the main problems with a concept like the Green Party is that it seems to be asking the public to accept the Ten Key Values, and the platforms based upon them, as a precondition for voting Green. This makes it look as if the Green Party is rejecting everyone who isn't (yet) on board with the Ten Key Values; i.e. they look like a party of purists."

Well, Ralph Nader seems to be asking us to reject every candidate who does not agree with 100% of his values. He did not try very hard to become the Green Party nominee. Thus, he comes across as some sort of purist... follow me, Ralph Nader, or I'm going to do what I can to ensure four more years of destructive Republican rule and teach you folks a harsh lesson.

If Ralph Nader was on the Green Party primary ballot in some states, then democracy has run it course and he should accept the results of the Green Party primary. If he wasn't interested in accepting the results, he should stop misleading people and not pretend to be a supporter of the Green Party.

Of course he has a right to run for President! Every American citizen born in the U.S. and over ... whatever age is specified in the Constitution... has a right to run for President!

And everyone else has a right to voice their opinion regrading whether it is a good idea, a wise idea, for the greater good, et cetera. Once someone throws his hat into the eleciton ring, he and his supporters should not be surprised or upset that the decision and motives to run for office and the candidates platform will be discussed.

I doubt anyone disputes Ralph Nader's right to run for office. But they are certainly questioning, and allowed to question, the wisdom of that decision.

Simple question:

Which candidate -- of Clinton, Obama, Gravel, Nader, McCain, Huckabee, and the numerous others not talked about -- are most likely to get elected via the current system AND represent your values?

Sorry, but... he doesn't really appear to play well with others. As a result, he will find himself shunned and villified rather that, say, head of the EPA or some other important Federal agency. Imagine Ralph Nader as Attorney General? That's all one can and ever will do... imagine it.

Did I say lobbying, must have been a Frueudian slip.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

But it does subtract from Democratic candidate's totals.

The vote-tabulators are also not subtracting Nader's vote totals from the Democrat vote totals.  Are there any more falsehoods on this matter I've forgotten to counter here?

Oh yeah, and then there's the "scandal" of Nader receiving money from his old Republican buddies from Princeton.  From Kevin Zeese on Democracy Now:

The Center for Responsive Politics looked at our support, found only 4% of it came from republican donors. They also found that John Kerry has received 100 times more support from republican donors than we have.

Well, Ralph Nader seems to be asking us to reject every candidate who does not agree with 100% of his values.

What evidence supports this assertion?

And what's wrong with running against the neoliberal status quo?

He did not try very hard to become the Green Party nominee.

Since (as I said above) the Green Party is only a viable entity in four states, and since getting the Green Party's nomination is a matter of pleasing a self-selected cadre of gatekeepers, I fail to see why "trying very hard to become the Green Party nominee" would be a reason to vote for Nader, or for that matter for any particular candidate.  Is there something special about, say, Phil Huckelberry or, maybe, Jody Haug, that we should trust their judgment about who would or wouldn't make a good President?

I can, on the other hand, imagine the frustration of Green Party loyalists who might wish that Nader would actually put some effort into building up the Green Party rather than in running as an independent.  America could use a good third party; it is, however, up to that third party to show the public that it is a deserving alternative to the two-party system.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

I keep waiting for some sort of strategy or plan. Instead we get "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it any more." Such an approach may feel good, but it is no way to approach social change.

Yeah, a strategy or plan would be nice.  Wouldn't it?

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

There were only two choices in 2000.  Nader said he would not allow the election to fall to Bush but Nader did not pull out of the Florida election by telling his supporters to vote for Gore.

Say what yu will abouta Nader's virtue and contributions to consumers.  He delivered Bush and Cheney and possibly 600,000 Iraq's are dead; several million displaced; the country in shambles; nearly 4000 American soldiers dead; many thousands of American soliders severely injured; possibly hundreds of thousand of returning American soldiers needing long-term care the White House ignores...what else can you add to this sad list of only one chapter of the past 7.5 years.

Nader will never answer for the mess he caused by goading 97,000 Floridians to vote for him.

Ralph, do you see the difference now!  Get out of our face!

Say what yu will abouta Nader's virtue and contributions to consumers.  He delivered Bush and Cheney and possibly 600,000 Iraq's are dead;

Gore actually won Florida -- but Nader, and only Nader, is to blame for the tame Democratic response to the recount snafu which occurred after the election.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

 

Jude Rene Montarsi Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, USA

He is an arrogant, pathetic narcicist. For the media to give him the time of day is a tragic waste of time.

Media blackouts are good for all.  Stopper those ears!  Close those eyes!

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

Time and time again, contemporary psychological studies have shown that people who live by their stated values -- NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCES -- are more fulfilled than those who don't. Voting by strategy WON'T CHANGE this country. Your voice, your truth will NOT BE HEARD unless you vote according to your values instead of for the so-so candidate you think has the best chance of defeating the evil-corporate-warmonger candidate.

But.

If Nader was sincere about the arguments that he was making in 2000, why didn't he build a movement in 2001-2003? Where was he? What was he doing? He had the names of hundreds of thousands of supporters. Why didn't he build a movement? He went dark for three years. Then he runs again in 2004, and again he does nothing in 2005-2007.

And his argument that Gore and Bush were Tweedledum and Tweedledum was obvious horseshit in 2000, and even more obviously wrong in retrospect.

To hell with him.

What's a voter to do???

: )

I guess that only proves that ego overcomes intelligence and rationality every time!

A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.  Period - no arguing - that is just the way it is.

No arguing -- and, while you're at it, don't think, either.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

Neither Clinton nor Obama offer any meaningful change. They both supported the PATRIOT Act, Iraq War, and Big Coal. They both wimped out on National Health.

Neither one will do anything meaningful on CO2 emissions. Cap and Trade is a farce!

We are now in an energy crises with oil hovering around $100/barrel. All the signs tell us that Peak Oil is here. Neither Democrat proposes anything meaningful in response.

Yes, I know, one wants to spend $50 billion on energy independence! The other wants 10 years to get CAFE standards up to 35 mpg!  Take a look at what the Greens are calling for. They believe we're in a crises. They're calling for Manhatten Projects to avert it. Greens would divert the entire $500 billion budget from the Iraq War and spend it on ending our dependence on fossil fuels.

By comparison, the Democrats' posturing is ludicrous.

http://www.northsidegreenparty.org/

Actually, I am thinking...  I'm thinking that I don't want John McCain as our president.  Are you thinking?

I'm thinking about Nader-hating idiots who want to run elections based on conformity (thus bullying nonsense like "a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain"), who would silence the antiwar movement for the sake of prowar Democrats (thus