February 21, 2004
Ralph Nader Set to Announce His Candidacy For President
Ralph Nader is set to announce that he will run as an independant for the office of President of the United States. I have been reading that the Green Party will not support him this time out. Democrat bloggers are angry that he is set to run again and Republican bloggers are overjoyed. Nader says people who urge (not force) him to not run are against the first amendment rights. That's interesting for a man who goes out of his way to not have workers unionize.
Dawn at "Driving With Dawn" summed up Nader best: "My main problem with Nader is that he seems like a fraud. He says he is for worker's rights, but he doesn't allow workers at his organization to unionize. He whines about big corporations, but invests vast amount of money in oil companies and the like." Max Sawicky has more on Nader's union busting. "I happen to belong to a trade union local that seeks to organize people who work for liberal organizations. They are scared to death of Ralph. They think that if they tried to organize his workers, all of their recruits would be fired immediately. There is a history that supports this apprehension. This is completely unacceptable in a liberal leader. If I'm wrong, let Ralph announce that he is willing to recognize employee efforts to unionize." Nader attacked Dick Cheney in 2000 for his connections to big oil money and Al Gore for being a tool for special interests. Ralph doesn't want to let other people use their right to free speech to question his stock portfolio. "But even if Fidelity were to divest its holdings in Occidental, it holds shares in so many companies Nader has crusaded against, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Nader's participation in the fund is supremely hypocritical. The fund, for example, owns stock in the Halliburton Company, where George W. Bush's running mate, Dick Cheney, recently worked as president and COO. The fund has investments in supremely un-p.c. clothiers the Gap and the Limited, both of which have been the target of rocks by World Trade Organization protesters, as well as Wal-Mart, the slayer of mom-and-pop stores from coast to coast." I still believe that Ralph Nader wants Bush to win a second term. Nader has to be aware he tipped the scales in 2000 (which he still won't admit.) What other reason would he have for running?
-
It's sad--Nader used to be a guy who fought for all of us, with the consumer protection stuff. Now he's just an asshole. He's well aware that running again will help Bush--I only hope that no one takes the bait this time. (and at least the Greens refused to let him hijack them this time)
-
Sullivan-- This is going to be an interesting election again! Yay! As your Honorable Opposition, I don't have time to respond to most of what you said, but you still haven't answered the big one: WHAT FACTS do you have to PROVE Nader wants Bush to win? Why couldn't he as easily siphon off a few of those "Broken Glass Republicans" as Dems? And most importantly, What does the Libertarian Party have against Nader? Is it that he sees unrestrained free-marketism as a call for anarchy? That LESS regs are BEST regs? Like I asked a couple of threads ago, please explain your intense vitriol towards this man. He must scare you a little bit, because you're working really hard to chew him up.
-
Should've been "less regs are NOT best regs.." Otherwise we'd completely agree, have no reason to joust, and both of us would have to take up a hobby...
-
talkingpointsmemo has a good post on Nader. Dizzy, are you actually for him? Knowing he can't win, and that him running takes votes away from the eventual dem nominee?
-
amberglow: Nader decided to run only after Dean effectively withdrew. Doesn't sound like a guy who want Bush to win, sounds like a guy who's sick of DNC "Don't rock the boat" candidates.
-
My intense vitriol toward Nader comes from his smear campaign against nuclear power plants, which have been this country's best hope at ending our dependence on foreign oil for nearly fifty years. Because of Nader's ugly tactics and fearmongering, we have the war in Iraq today. My intense vitriol toward Nader comes from his advocacy of 100% income tax of those earning more than (iirc) ten times the minimum wage and his failure to understand even basic economic principles. My intense vitriol toward Nader comes from the fact that while whining about evil corporate media, he's forcing his employees to work grueling hours under poor conditions and thinks he can get away with it - because he's deluded himself into believing he's still a lone voice in the wilderness, and not his own (small) empire. I don't know where Sullivan's vitriol comes from, but now you know the source of mine.
-
No no no no no no no no no..... (Oh well. Bush'll win anyway.)
-
*gales of fiendish laughter*
-
well, the only thing left to do now is get Pat Robertson to run (or someone like him) to siphon the right away from Bush...anyone have his #?
-
Gary Bauer. That'd do it.
-
perfect...call him up and urge him to run, or better yet, start a petition and a draftBauer website ; >
-
How about Roy Moore?
-
Amberglow; Yes, I am "actually for him", now that Dean is toast. I need someone to speak the truth, not the party lines. Is Nader perfect.? Nope. Is he gonna win? Nev-ah! Is it going to feel really good to vote for someone who says what I want said, and who is not a hand-puppet for Coke and Pepsi (Dems and GOP)? You betcha! MOST IMPORTANT: Nader "will not take votes away from the eventual nominee"--the fine, strange people of Iowa, etc, etc. have already done that for me. I wanted Dean to be the nominee. I didn't want to settle. And I'm not about to "suck it up and fall on my sword" for "the greater good of the party". MY Democratic party has been adrift for quite some time. THIS IS NOT A VOTE FOR BUSH--Last election I lived in Maryland, a state so locked up for a Gore win that he never visited it. Seems like geography is more important than ever... Musing...: "Because of Nader, we have the war in Iraq". Please explain THAT sentence to me. A Cry in the Wilderness: Anybody else feel as I do?
-
Sure, I'll explain it. Nader's idiotic campaign against nuclear power destroyed America's chances to move away from a fossil-fuel based economy. Nader used lies and propaganda to make Americans believe nuclear power was unsafe. For that matter, because the fear-inducing tactics were so strong, no nuclear plants have been built since (even newer designs that are meltdown-proof). Without Nader, we would not be nearly reliant on oil, and wouldn't need to go to war for it.
-
Are you sure the fact that no new nuclear power plants have been built isn't related to events like Chernobyl instead?
-
Heh. So much for nice. Politics == nasty after all. As for Nader, he bothers me. If he really doesn't see any differences between the two parties, then he's being willfully blind. I view him the same way I viewed Lieberman. Old politicians who've played the game too long, but won't give up when better men come along. Time to take 'em out behind the shed and pull an Ol' Yeller.
-
Dizzy: I wanted Dean to be the nominee. I didn't want to settle. And I'm not about to "suck it up and fall on my sword" for "the greater good of the party". MY Democratic party has been adrift for quite some time. THIS IS NOT A VOTE FOR BUSH--Last election I lived in Maryland, a state so locked up for a Gore win that he never visited it. Seems like geography is more important than ever... I wanted Dean too, but he's gone--but Dean was a solid Democrat, even tho not a DC one, and he totally changed the way all the dem candidates are talking about issues (hopefully the governance will change too, once we get into the white house again or take back the senate). Show me how Nader is at all like Dean, or even has a platform at all, except to trash both parties. And why not vote for LaRouche or the communist party candidate or one of the many lesser parties running if it's just a protest vote? Nader's full of venom and you're encouraging him.
-
Amber-- LaRouche is, to my mind, a fraud. The commies? Funny! I don't know enough about "lesser parties" to vote for them. What is "this venom" you mention? Musing-- Don't hold your breath on America EVER embracing Nuke power again--Kerry won't even say the "N" word, he just whispers "Ethanol subsidies" to the mid-west on his website. And re-asserting the SAME assertions regarding Nader and oil-based wars is not enlightening, it is tedious. How can we discuss if you won't give me some FACTS? Provable, unassailable TRUTHS? (Not just some partisan rant website...) Sorry I keep repeating myself, too: you'd rather have me vote for the good of the "X" than have me vote my conscience or fancy or any other reason I wish to vote? That is SO (and I mean this without a molecule of irony) Un-American!
-
Amber-- LaRouche is, to my mind, a fraud. The commies? Funny! I don't know enough about "lesser parties" to vote for them. What is "this venom" you mention? Musing-- Don't hold your breath on America EVER embracing Nuke power again--Kerry won't even say the "N" word, he just whispers "Ethanol subsidies" to the mid-west on his website. And re-asserting the SAME assertions regarding Nader and oil-based wars is not enlightening, it is tedious. How can we discuss if you won't give me some FACTS? Provable, unassailable TRUTHS? (Not just some partisan rant website...) Sorry I keep repeating myself, too: you'd rather have me vote for the good of the "X" than have me vote my conscience or fancy or any other reason I wish to vote? That is SO (and I mean this without a molecule of irony) Un-American!
-
nah, you should vote for who you want to see in the whitehouse, and/or who believes in what you believe, and/or who will implement what you want to see happen, and/or who isn't Bush, etc. and speaking of frauds... It's just that if you're not happy with the current administration, which it's clear you're not with your support for Dean, why not ensure it's not extended? The dem candidates running have all coopted Dean's rhetoric, and only one has a voting history that belies that rhetoric.
-
Amber-- MARYLAND (where I live this month) and MASS. (where I'm moving to on the 27th) are both super-strongholds for the Dems. GOP waaay outnumbered. My vote for Nader or even Doris Day ain't gonna matter mathematically, what with our handy electoral college whatsis. As you know, if the popular vote was the criteria, we'd all be wearing "4 More For Gore" buttons right now. Thus, I think those who choose to "vote the party, not the candidate" are the ones throwing away their vote, not me. By living in those two states and voting for anyone but Bush I AM "ensuring {Bush} is not extended," and sending a message that I'm displeased with my party. That's what I meant when I noted above that geography seems more important than ever. Can we start to trash the DNC biggies now, because that chairman MUST leave!
-
I am deeply disturbed by Nader's stance on unionisation. I don't think unionisation is the only way to improve working conditions, and I often disgree with the local unions, but I stand absolutely firm that any employee, anywhere has the right to vote for whether they would like to be unionised. I don't care how small or non-profit, if you are saving orphaned elephants with bum left legs, your staff members deserve decent treatment, and the right to unionise if they don't get it. Members of my family have worked with several non-profits - and the proper ones pay their staff decently and if they can't afford enough people, they seek our volunteers. That Nader would deny this to his own staff members makes him a hypocrite, plain and simple. No matter how much I may dislike some right-wing politicians, I hate the left-wing hypocrites more, because they are soiling my side of the pond. Of course, not being an American citizen, I can't vote in this race that will determine the shape of WORLD politics for the next four years. So when you, my fellow Monkeys of the United Statsian persuasion, go to the ballot box, please remember that your vote is not just that of one person, but that you're voting on behalf of the other 5 billion and change of us too.
-
Dizzy:Can we start to trash the DNC biggies now, because that chairman MUST leave! Sure! most of us are unhappy with the DC folks, which is why i'm upset Dean is out...he was the one from not DC that had a chance. (and that's why i'm going with Edwards--he's only been there a little while, as opposed to Kerry, who i hate, but would still vote for). But--if you leave the party, the leadership will never change. They won't get any message from you, and think they did good by getting their guy as the nominee (Kerry). i'm with you on the union thing, jb, but they've been dying here for years, and whitecollar ones are only just starting and have zero power. We're kinda used to shitty working conditions, and no safety net tho--kinda
-
Nader used lies and propaganda to make Americans believe nuclear power was unsafe. For that matter, because the fear-inducing tactics were so strong, no nuclear plants have been built since (even newer designs that are meltdown-proof). I'd blame the Simpsons for that. (Also, I've read before that no private Nuclear power station has ever run at a profit. They all need bailing out by the government, basically, as as happened in Britain recently. This, of course, might just be an argument over the privatisation of power plants.)
-
i hate ralph nader because i love him so much. everything he says i agree with, totally. but, that said, he's absolutely unelectable. america has, and always will have, a two-party system. gotta be a republican or a democrat to sit in the oval office. simple as that.
-
um... forgive me for asking, but - those of you who wanted to vote dean, and are now considering somebody else as a second-choice alternative - if you're going to send a vote to someone who doesn't have a chance of winning, to soothe your conscience, what the hell stops you from putting dean in as a write-in candidate? we're allowed to do that, y'know. (just DON'T under any circumstances do anything of the sort if you're voting in florida. you all know why. we don't want to go through that again, not there - anywhere else, someplace that doesn't have another bush as governor, maybe, but not there.)
-
Tracicle: Chernobyl was a type of nuclear plant that has never been used in the United States, and the disaster occurred because all backup safety systems had been turned off. No one in the United States has been killed as a result of nuclear power. But how many people are killed as a result of the wars for oil, or from mining coal and the problems associated with it?
-
caution live frogs - You don't have to put Dean in as a write-in candidate, he's still on the ballot. He's also entitled to take the delegates he's already won to the convention in July. This is why he chose to 'suspend' his campaign, instead of bowing out entirely - so he can still influence the platform at the convention. For what it's worth - he still has my vote come March 2.
-
Nota bene--when I wrote "DNC Biggies" I meant Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe and his ilk--the real puppetmasters of the party. These guys control the funding, the pr, the machinery. McAuliffe hates Dean, hates Clark (even though Bill and Hillary gave their tacit but only off-the-record support of his campaign) and <<
>> adores Kerry. These men have too much power. They are truly kingmakers. Yikes! -
I don't know how many times I have to post my thoughts on Nader to make Dizzy happy. Bush said in 2000 his tax cuts were to benefit poor people. Does anyone believe him. He has changed the reasons for his cuts so many times. Surplus, deficit and my favorite, war (what President has had tax cuts during war before him.) After awhile you can conclude that the guy is lying. Nader does the same thing. The guy will not even admit that just maybe he might have hurt Gore in 2000. He comes with his theories about Florida and the Supreme Court. Plus, what makes anyone think that Nader would be a good President? I can't imagine him on 9/11. Picture that for a moment. I vote for Bush before Nader. I bet a bunch of monkeys just dropped their bananas.
-
I don't think the point here is electability (obviously zero) or what Nader would be like as president (because he won't be). It's about whether or not voting for Nader if you truly believe in what he says is better or worse for the country, assuming that you are against Bush and that your vote for Nader would hurt the Democrats, who you agree with much more. Nader can trash the Dems all he wants, but he's too smart not to acknowledge that he's not above or below the two parties - he's off to the side. He is also, however, too egotistical to not deny this. Remember "Gush/Bore"? Nowadays I'm finding myself saying "Nush? Bader?"
-
Nader's people took it down from the site, but Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo linked to "amazingly comical sophistry about how (Nader's) being in the race will make it more likely that a Democrat will be elected president." I think it's safe to say the Ralph won't be going after Bush supporters.
-
Mark Kleiman brings up some good points about Nader. "One of the bitterest lessons I learned as a young and naive liberal staffer on Capitol Hill was that the "public interest research" produced by the Nader groups was systematically fraudulent. Every time I actually got into an issue deeply enough to understand the details -- nuclear power, toxic waste, pharmaceutical regulation -- I discovered that the Naderites had no more respect for the facts than the industries they were fighting: in some cases, less. So let's hear a little less about St. Ralph this time. Someone should ask some pointed questions about how he got to be a multimillionaire. (Hint: What happens to the royalties on the books that the underpaid Public Citizen employees write under Nader's by-line?)"
-
Well. I'm thoroughly frustrated by this thread. Sullivan--please suspend the Ad Hominem. Hurts your cred. Musingmelpomene-- little Ralphie would love to have the powers you ascribe to him, but he's just an activist, not a world power. Amberglow-- not being burdened by knowlege regarding the Electoral College system is not a plus in catfights like this. I am not surprised by your distaste (to put it mildly; "rabid hatred" seems more apropos) of Nader-- the guy seems to polarize entire states. I AM saddened by your knee-jerk reaction to going outside the two-party system. My college buddies who voted for Anderson back in '80 were thought of as "poli-sci geeks", ivory tower types who were out of touch with the way the world worked, but harmless. These days you'd add a dollop of "Traitorous Bush-loving ego-maniacal spoiler-boy". You wanna be really fired up, super-pissed at someone? Take that anger over to GORE, where it BELONGS--HE BLEEEEEWWWWW IT. Al Gore is the reason we have "W". This stiff, inarticulate, fearful little dipstick LOST a sure LOCK on the election. Have the courage to name the real villain, and not l'il Ralphie, who first and loudest pointed out what a naked emperor-to-be we had. Kerry? Edwards? Not fit for dog-catcher, let alone the nomination. That was my rant. Take your best shot. I doubt I'll have the guts to post this, but I'm off this thread for good...
-
A friend of mine was telling me one reason why the US seems only able to support two paries, (rather than the 4 or 5 parties normal countries have ;) has to do with the presidency itself. With only one seat to be won, and so much riding on this one seat, any third party would only draw votes away from the party closest to it, allowing the other to win. He mentioned a polisci formula, something like the number of available seats plus one. Anyone familiar with the idea, and have a less swiss cheese memory?
-
jb - no, but i have seen over the years that any 3rd party with an idea that gains attention is immediately out of luck. whichever party is behind in the polls just steals the 3rd party's platform... with the cash resources to do so, it means that 3rd parties are never important for more than one election at a time. it would be great to have more than 2 choices that had a chance in hell of getting elected, but we can at least count on an outside group shaking up the system a little every few years.
-
Apparently Nader and McAuliffe came to an agreement; he plans to focus most of his ire on Bush. Here's a blog post from an environmental journalist that is absolutely worth reading. In short: the Dems would do better to co-opt the liberal leftists that make up the Nader/Green base rather than alienate them, in the same way that the Republicans won over the core Reform Party voters after '92 and won all those congressional elections in '94.
-
Thanks for posting that, Mr. Bones! He said everything I've been trying to say, only he said it better. (oh. i promised not to post further in this thread.sorry.)
-
Maybe I shouldn't be commenting here (me not being US citizen and knowing nil about political theory), but what the hell. About third parties. In Mexico we currently have a working (more or less) tripartite system and it has nothing to do with having more than one seat in government (having no prime minister and such). It has more to do with social conditions and its geographical distribution. Right now, the north of the country is controlled mostly by rightists, the south by leftists and the center by, er, centrists. But this crude definition is lacking Not all rightists are conservatives and not all leftists are liberals, the south being more religious and conservative than the north that in turn is more religious and conservative than the center. There's a hevulla lot of ideological stances and most politicians are integrated in parties more for strategical reasons than ideological ones. Our own version of Nader (being from the weakest party of the three), Lopez Obrador, is becomming the most probably winning candidate for the 2006 elections if he ever decides to become one.
-
The questions at the end of the day is do you want for four years of Bush? My cred is just find. Dizzy, I think Nader is making you, ahh ... dizzy. Sit down and relax. We're all monkeys here.
-
Nader hurt the advocacy groups he founded by running in 2000. "Public-interest groups that Nader founded over the past few decades are not too thrilled, either. Outfits such as Public Citizen, the Aviation Consumer Action Project and the Center for Auto Safety lost donations and members after 2000 in apparent payback for Nader's candidacy. Last week, Public Citizen sent out an advisory stressing that Nader, who founded the consumer-advocacy group in 1971, is no longer affiliated with the organization and that it has nothing to do with his political aspirations." He will hurt the groups he founded even worse in 2004. Think about it, Nader ran and GOT NOTHING. He didn't even get a seat at the table of either party. He is doing a DISERVICE to his causes and his political career. He has no chance of winning and he won't get anything from the Republicans ort Democrats. Dizzy, ask yourself why he is running.
-
Uh-oh. Didn't mean to rankle you there, Sully. (We're all monkeys here, remember?) "Nader ran and got nothing?" He got me, and many thousands of others, to start thinking that there might be more than Coke and Pepsi. He got you pretty upset at him. According to you, he changed political history! But I find myself disturbed by more of your sweeeeeping statements: "...doing a dis-service to his causes and political career....Ask yourself Why is he running..." Sullivan. Honestly: How DARE you ever cast aspersions on the man's causes and career. This man put his ass on the line, in sometimes universal condemnation, because he wants to make this country better. He has made some BIG mistakes at times. He is not perfect. But this guy has selflessly been trying to warn us about some real dangers (unchecked corporate rampages, globaltrade debacles, product/environmental safety) since before you and I were BORN. You call him an egotist, I call him a patriot, but the answer probablies lies somewhere in the middle. But as always, you enjoy attacking the man and NOT the arguments he makes. Please tell me about your candidate?
-
I back a man whose character can not be questioned.
-
Heh. Sullivan can dish it out. But can he take it?
-
I backed Bob Graham, but now he's out. Now I'm waiting to see if it's Kerry or Edwards. I rather have Edwards, but getting Bush out is number 1 on my list.
-
I've heard that about you. What precisely drew you to these candidates, if I may ask?
-
I've heard that about you. Whatever that means. Graham was a good governor for Florida. He stood up to both Bush brothers George in Iraq and Jeb on education in Florida. Beat Jeb and lost to Dubya on Iraq. Graham voted against it. He also pushed for a 9/11 commission. Edwards looks like Clinton without the vices. Smart guy, but he might be too inexperienced to be a good president. Kerry has been liberal on social issues and conservative on national security. A major plus with him is that he was advocating balanced budgets before it was hip to do so. Right now the country needs someone who will address the deficit.
-
You are OK with Kerry voting YES to Iraq war? You are OK with Kerry voting YES to Patriot Act? You are OK with Kerry's 11 tries but never passing a viable healthcare bill? You are OK with Kerry's ownership of a SUV? You are OK with Kerry being a member of "Skull and Bones", along with the Bushes? Not releasing his war records? $6.4 million Boston home? Etc...?
-
Yes, I am. Kerry has been a better senator than Bush was a governor of Texas. Kerry is far from perfect. That said, I'll take him (and his SUV) over Bush in a heartbeat. Howard Dean on Nader. Those who truly want America's leaders to stand up to the corporate special interests and build a better country for working people should recognize that, in 2004, a vote for Ralph Nader is, plain and simple, a vote to re-elect George W. Bush. I hope that Ralph Nader will withdraw his candidacy in the best interests of the country we hope to become. If you vote for Nader you deserve another four years of Bush. This election is too important to waste on votes.
-
This is a great post from Jane Galt
-
Forget Nader. Draft Moore.
-
Sullivan: "If you vote for Nader you DESERVE another four years of Bush" is the most patently simple-minded and offensive thing you've (lifted from some other site) YET. I didn't let that man in--look around you--54% of those people walking the streets and faxing you copy and delivering you pizza and merging your company did. YOU ARE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR, BRO. Convince those "Swing Voters' (i.e. lazy assholes who loooove a little attention every four years) that Kerry is The Man. Don't waste your time with ME. No amount of petty insults will disabuse me of my steadfast belief that GORE lost this country last time, the DNC will lose it THIS time, and your "brand loyaty" to Coke and Pepsi is but a comfporting shadow of a time, maybe a generation ago, where there WAS a difference. Don't you think we're just spinning our wheels at each other now? And don't you think you've forgotten that though I remain the Loyal Opposition, we're not both on the same side?
-
Is the Judean People's Front putting forward a candidate, out of interest? But seriously, folks, it makes me think of something that was done over here in '97, when the essential objective was to get the Tories out. It was a website (set up by no less a hero than Billy Bragg) which allowed people to partner up with other voters in different constituencies, to ensure that they could have their say in the national poll, while ensuring that the candidate in their own constituencies who was best placed to defeat the Conservative maximised their vote. So, a Labour supporter in a Lib-Dem v Tory constituency would swap votes with a Lib-Dem in a Labour v Tory constituency. Does anybody know if there's a similar plan in the US this time round - so that a Naderite in (say) Florida can swap with a Democrat in a safe Dem state (like the one Dizzy'll be voting in)? Nader gets the same share of the national vote, the message gets sent to the oh-too-centrist Dems, but the world is at least saved from four more years of Dubya-sponsored Armageddon...
-
I doubt it, Flash as (even aside from the issue of Nader hate) this is a one-job deal ... tactical vote swapping won't appeal to anyone. I mean, I dig it about upping Nader's voteshare, but can't imagine that many would be all that concerned about it. Although IANAA, obviously, and should therefore STFU.
-
Flashboy - that was a terrific idea. It took Ontario two terms to oust the Tories, despite them only achieving just over 40% of the popular vote. But quidnunc is right that it is much less likely to work with only one seat at stake. Maybe this is what my friend meant when he talked about a limit to the number of parties.
-
All new! [Flash.]
-
flashboy - we did that in 2000. I live in atlanta, georgia, which is "bush country" and swapped my vote out so Nader could get his 5% to ensure him federal funding. Of course he didn't and I would have voted for Nader anyway but I felt good about doing it. Note: I absolutely totally supported Nader in 2000 but not this time around. This time around I'm closing my eyes, holding my nose and voting Democrat. I want Bush out. Same reason I supported Dean, even though I really liked Kucinich.
-
This is from Orcinus.
-
Is it just me, or has nader just totally lost his mind?
-
Is it just me, or has nader just totally lost his mind? It's not just you, lkc.