He's Back

Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.

ADVERTISING POLICY

[Advanced]

Tools: print | email | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Ralph Nader jumps into the presidential race

Posted at 9:55 AM on 24 Feb 2008

"I have decided to run for president," Ralph Nader declared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday morning, after listing a litany of problems in America and citing polls that have found citizen discontent with the direction of the country and with both main political parties. Washington, D.C. is "corporate-occupied territory," he said, and he accused Barack Obama of leaning "toward the corporate side." He also had harsh words for Hillary Clinton, and harsher still for John McCain. Nader's campaign website promises to fight "corporate greed, corporate power, corporate control," citing among other scourges polluters, agribusiness giants, nuclear power, and Big Oil. Also on his site, he calls for a carbon tax, which the other remaining presidential candidates do not support, and he declares, "No to nuclear power, solar energy first." Do you think Nader should run? Take our poll.

source: Meet the Press

ADVERTISING POLICY

< Previous | Next >

Comments: (31 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

What a self-absorbed jerk

If Nader wants to make a difference, he should be actively engaged in building the progressive/green wing of the Democratic Party, reforming our broken electoral system, and undermining the old-guard wing of the DNC from the inside.

But what kind of on-the-ground, unglamourous, back-breaking work has he done in the last 7 years to build an alternative political movement (be it Democrat or Green Party) with any real political influence? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

Instead, he runs these vanity campaigns every 4 years. Anybody can do that.

Sheee-it. If Nader steals enough votes from the Dems to elect McCain in 2008, he should be pummeled senseless with unread copies of 'My Pet Goat' from G.W. Bush's Presidential Library.

by GonzoDon at 11:02 AM on 24 Feb 2008

Nader's credibility problem

Nader used similar rhetoric in the '2000 campaign, claiming he needed to be in the race because there wasn't enough difference between the major party candidates (Gore and Bush) ... before he can be at all credible he needs to come out and admit how wrong that was and apologize for his role in the 8 years of Bush that we will have endured (it is too early to know if we can say survived) since Gore's "loss".

If there is a bright side to this development, it may be that certain people who had been reluctant to endorse will feel compelled to do so now. What do you think, Al?

If a twigg falls in the forest but nobody is there to hear it, it's probably best because there is bound to be cussing.

by Tom Twigg at 1:00 PM on 24 Feb 2008

Nader's legacy

I'm just so disappointed, because Ralph Nader is destroying his legacy and reputation as a crusader for consumer safety and rights, and all he will be remembered for are these ego-driven campaigns. There was an argument in 2000, however flawed, that his campaign with the Green Party was about a long term strategy to build that party by garnering enough votes to get federal funding. But what is this year's candidacy about? I just don't get it.

Please, Ralph, Don't Run: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/dontvotenader2008

by paxmeow at 1:34 PM on 24 Feb 2008

Both Democrats support Nuclear industry!

Three Mile Island?
Karen Silkwoood?

chernobyl anyone?

Obama took big money from the Nuke Lobby!

www.votenader.org

by Tim McKee at 3:44 PM on 24 Feb 2008

Democratize the Democratic Party

People often argue that our country has a two party system. While this is true, I believe it is really a fine thing. The problem lies in those parties themselves. Our two parties should be coalition parties. While to some degree they are coalition parties, both the republican and democratic parties are undemocratic. The primary is our opportunity to support any candidate we want. If a liberal candidate can't win the democratic primary how can we expect them to win in the national contest? Winning is not first and foremost, our values are. But if we can create a just primary system and greater democracy within our democratic party, then we will be giving Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and anyone else a just opportunity. We can work together as liberals to pick a candidate and support them in the national campaign. The future justice of American politics lies in making the democratic party more democratic. If we truly had a democratic democratic party any third party ralph naders would just be sore losers who couldn't handle the big time and felt as if they were still doing something. Its time to move beyond egos, winners and losers, and to make a democratic democratic party. That is what I will be working on. No more superdelegates, everyone's vote equaling one vote, money restrictions, balanced media offerings, a democratic party democracy committee, a democratic party fact verification and anti-slander committee, and a candidate chosen from the votes not a convention. Positive change takes many forms, but as we all work for that change my political efforts will be focused on increasing democracy within the democratic party.

by mzungumasai at 3:59 PM on 24 Feb 2008

Blaming Nader

First, many of us are NOT Democrats and will not vote for the Democratic candidate in any case, with the exception of a miraculous nomination of someone like Dennis Kucinich or Barbara Lee. So there's no point in blaming Ralph Nader or anyone else from the Green Party, because we'd either vote Green no matter what, we'd vote for another independent candidate, we'd write someone in, or we wouldn't vote at all.

Second, more DEMOCRATS voted for George Bush in Florida in 2000 than voted for Ralph Nader, so why don't you blame them instead of Nader? Every qualified American citizen has the right to run for president, and no one is entitled to run without competition.

Third, you continue to focus your wrath on Ralph Nader and the Green Party (of which I am only a marginal supporter, but not because I think they sabotage the pro-corporate Democrats) instead of on the Democratic Party for being so pro-corporate and so pro-war and instead of our dysfunctional electoral system that lacks the instant runoff voting that would eliminate the "wasted vote" syndrome. The Democratic party does not deserve the support of those of us who are opposed to these things and will never get it. The undemocratic American electoral system does not deserve the support of anyone who believes in democracy. Your wrath would be much better focused on ending private campaign financing and fixing the electoral system than on criticizing a person who spends his life making personal sacrifices for what he perceives to be the good of the majority.

Fourth, by settling for the lesser of two evils instead of supporting what you really believe in, you are part of the problem. If you actually support the pro-corporate, pro-war, anti-environmental policies of the Democratic or Republican parties, then by all means vote for one of their candidates. But if you don't, stop voting for and supporting them and support people with whom you share political ideologies and viewpoints. I'd like to see some honesty in the posts by people who oppose Nader: Do you believe in what he stands for and oppose what he opposes, and therefore you're just mad at him for strategical reasons because you believe in lesser of evils voting? Or are you a supporter of the liberal side of corporate America, AKA the Democrats, and oppose Nader because of his ideologies and positions?

Fourth, Ralph Nader had to be talked into running by the Green Party the first time he ran. He lives on a mere $30,000 annually and donates the rest of his income, even though he has a lot of money and could live far more comfortably or even opulently. THIS is the type of person who should lead nations, not gas bag corporate lackeys like the ones the Democrats and Republicans always nominate, with the extremely rare exception of George McGovern.

Fifth, while I agree that Nader has virtually no chance of winning at this point, he gives those of us who refuse to compromise our beliefs at the ballot box a chance to vote for someone we actually support. Like another poster, I don't see what else this accomplishes, but that's enough for me, considering that whoever gets elected will continue to destroy the planet. As Jerry Brown once said, the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is the pace of destruction. While the slower pace of the Democrats is not as bad as the faster one of the Republicans, I'm strongly opposed to both. The issue is NOT whether there's a difference between the Democrats and Republicans, but instead what the differences are and whether the similarities are greater than the differences.

Finally, let's look at the differences between the positions of the parties that the fanatic Democratic supporters posting here would have us believe are so huge.

1. War
McCain is a total war monger, voted for the Iraq war, and wants to keep U.S. troops there for 100 years. Clinton voted for the war, has continually voted to fund it, and would only remove some troops from Iraq while leaving tens of thousands indefinitely. Obama was not in Congress during the vote on the war and said publicly at the time that he opposed it. However, he has continually voted to fund it, same as Clinton, would leave tens of thousands of troops there indefinitely, wants to increase the size of the U.S. military by 100,000 troops, and wants to attack Pakistan (the latter not being a bad idea, as it should be given back to India from which it was stolen in order to provide a client state for the West).

2. Environment (aside from war)
McCain has continually voted for bad environmental legislation and against the few slightly good bills to come before the Senate during his tenure. He supports coal and nuclear power, would do nothing to reduce American overconsumption and nothing to reduce driving, cars, or roads, does not oppose destruction of natural land (AKA development, as in opposing the Roadless Rule for National Forests), and will do nothing to help lower human population, like providing easier and cheaper access to abortions (in fact, McCain changed his pro-choice position about a year ago and now says that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, so it's clear that this is not an important issue for him) or advocating for a one-child policy. Clinton and Obama support coal and nuclear power, would do nothing to reduce American overconsumption or reduce driving, cars, or roads, and will do nothing to help lower human population, like providing easier and cheaper access to abortions (though they support a woman's right to choose in theory) or advocating for a one-child policy.

These are the two most important issues and it's clear there's little difference between the candidates. I dont' claim that there's no difference, just that the similarities are much greater than the differences and that none of these candidates would ever get my vote with these disgusting positions. While Barak Obama seems to be the least offensive of this pathetic group, that's certainly no reason to support him.

by Wolverine at 4:31 PM on 24 Feb 2008

Ralph Nader direct cause of this Countries mess

I wrote to him and litterly begged him not to run as a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
His reply is the Democrats need to work harder.
Had it not been for Nader's EGO, we would not have the moron (BUSH) in office we have had for almost 8 years.
At a time I voted for Nader, being for the Environment. But when the stakes were as high as with this Corrupt Administration is and Nader still runs we can blame no one but idiot voters and NADER himself for an EGO trip he refuses to give up.
After what Nader has done (caused) 'all because he refused to see reality' we have a country in worse shape than we have ever had.
IMO, he should NOT be allowed to run as he too has caused all this blood Americans have on their hands from Bush's wars. Even though Bush has never won an election fairly and was beaten by the popular vote. How fair is that.
But had Nader kept his nose out of it we would have had another President for sure and the Country in a great shape not hated by every country in the entire world.
Stay out of it Nader. I despise this terrible Blood on my hands which is in essence your 'FAULT' entirely.

by graci01 at 4:32 PM on 24 Feb 2008

The broadly defined

very broadly defined progressive, left, liberal whatever movement - of which the environmental movement by default or intent is a member of, has never been able to figure out how to operate in the American electoral system. Never. The very same debates we are having in this forum were happening twenty, forty, seventy, a hundred years ago. It is almost like the movie Groundhog Day, no matter what we do, we end up in the same place. A few things we might consider.

(1) OK, focus on this thought real clearly. We are operating in the United States. Not Canada. Not France. Certainly not in some country in the lesser developed world. Any successful movement first has to have a keen sense of the terrain it operates on. The overall left in the country, resoltuely refuses to recognize this fact.

(2) There are those of us who want to make change. There are others who want to get to heaven. There are some of us who want to make change. There are others who want social therapy. Let's ask ourselves why the hell we are here.

(3) We need to have a good sense of the difference between politics as practiced in the US, and how movements are built and interact with politics.

(4) How does social change happen in the United States? Stunned silence is usually the response to this question, but it is a question that must be asked every day. I really don't think that those who say they are dedicated to social change have the foggiest f'in idea of how it happens in this country. Not a clue.

Consider the above and maybe we can start to have an intelligent conversation.

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

by randino at 5:17 PM on 24 Feb 2008

To Randy

This seems to be another pro status quo diatribe, but it's impossible to tell with such a vague post. My response is this:

Focus on significant change, not superficial change that only puts off the inevitable. So, we need 1) to eliminate private campaign financing, 2) get proportional representation, like every "democracy" aside from the backward U.S. and U.K., 3) get instant runoff voting, so that there are no "wasted" votes, though I don't agree that they're wasted, 4) restrict the campaign periods to the 30 days immediately preceding the elections, and 5) require all TV networks with major news departments (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) to provide and equal amount of free airtime to ALL candidates and prohibit censorship of any of them.

If those who are supporting Clinton or Obama now but think that we should have much better would use their energy for the changes outlined above, any gains would greatly exceed anything they could hope to accomplish by electing another pro-corporate, pro-war Democrat, even if (s)he isn't as pro-corporate or pro-war as the Republican.

by Wolverine at 5:32 PM on 24 Feb 2008

Well said

Nader, while certainly not perfect, is the only attractive candidate in this election for a large number of people who support a progressive-leaning agenda.

The democratic party has defeated somewhat progressive candidates such as Edwards, and aggressively marginalized others such as Kucinich. This party is no friend of people who support a platform that includes the following (and other related) items:

A serious, aggressive approach to environmental problems
single-payer health care
a non-imperialist foreign policy
reduction of corporate influence in policy-making and the end of excessive subsidies.

I agree wholeheartedly with Wolverine's comments about how voters settling for lesser-of-evils candidates exacerbate the problems of choice in our government.

I also remind those who disagree with my support of Nader that they are still allowed to vote for one of the other candidates, so don't worry, he hasn't wrecked everything. Remember, there are three candidates you can support, and they all are in favor of "clean coal" !!

by nunyerbus at 7:20 PM on 24 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

The sad truth...

... is that a standard "winner-take-all" electoral system essentially guarantees a two-party system. This is actually a mathematically describable progression. Our country was set up using this particular style of voting before the mathematics of the system were well understood, as were many other democracies. In the intervening years since we sorted out how stupid this style of voting is for preserving genuine representation, most other nations have changed their election systems. But not us.

So if you want real change, you want a genuine third party with a genuine chance of winning, rather than a "Select One: RED or BLUE", work to change our electoral system. Third parties don't have a chance in the system we have now, and typically only have a divisive effect on our system. Change the electoral system, then run your candidates. But before the system changes? There's just no point, and only damage can result.

by jedimomma at 9:38 AM on 25 Feb 2008

a minor distraction, at least this time around

Nader suffers from the chronic delusion that Americans pore carefully over a candidate's issue positions and then make calculated decisions. They don't. For many young voters in particular, Nader seemed like the hip candidate in 2000. Obama has that corner of the market nailed down this time. Moreoever, many Americans now appreciate the absurdity of Nader's claim that there was no substantial difference between Bush and Gore. Gore would not have invaded Iraq, cut taxes for the rich, or turned our public lands over to industry. Nader can be an annoying distraction in this year's actual contest, but nothing more. Saint Ralph is appallingly naive about who US voters are, what they think, and what it takes to get their support.

by davedenali at 9:59 AM on 25 Feb 2008

Ralph is running!

Too much is at stake for me to vote for him like I did in 2000. But, should he be in? I think so. Ralph has no lock on the truth but he is very unlikely to politicize his commentary than either Hillary or Obama.
The other two need to be prodded and poked so that we won't get a "safe" let's-not-offend-anyone type of campaign. We need to be real with the Hispanic community of Florida and their unreasoning hatred of anything that smells even vaguely of caving in to Cuban demands for recognition and and the liftingof tariffs. We need to be real about the Mexican immigrants, legalor illegal, who are the underpinning of our low wage economy. The middle class must face up to corporate interests and become the political force it needs to be. I'm not saying Ralph's the solution but someone's got to talk about this stuff and force the other candidates (including McCain) to discuss a lot of questions openly instead of dealing in platitudes.

by KPSKhalsa at 10:25 AM on 25 Feb 2008

Nader responsible for the Bush disaster

Just like Ross Perot allowed Bill Clinton to beat the Elder Busn, Nader allowed the idiot Bush to beat Al Gore. What a disaster we have had for 7 years! Go away Ralph!

by bobmaginnis at 10:27 AM on 25 Feb 2008

Darth Nader

I have a little sign on the wall in my office which reads:

Stupid Is Forever - Ignorance Can Be Fixed

Ralph should put this sign on the wall in his office and do nothing but read it outloud continuously until after the election.

Cheers,
Ron Castle

Cheers.

by roncastle at 10:35 AM on 25 Feb 2008

It's easy to be pure when you have no chance

of ever obtaining power.

Anyone can sit around and advocate for the most perfect, progressive, wonderful agenda that involves no compromises, no campaign fundraising, and no making deals with the opposition.

When you start actually having to appeal to the 90% of U.S. voters who don't agree with you, i.e., WIN - things get a lot more complicated a lot more quickly.

Being powerless can be safe and comforting. You don't have to make any compromises, any hard decisions. I think a lot of the Naderites like living in that safe, easy place where they can feel like perfect saints. But it's street fighters, not saints, who make change in politics.

by eriqa at 11:02 AM on 25 Feb 2008

how to put pressure on candidates

I think Nader or anyone else should use the elections' floor to raise the environmental topic in the electoral agenda, and then withdraw from the race to not weaken the greener candidate.

In France, we had Nicolas Hulot, a famous environmentalist and journalist, who used his popularity and credibility to make the candidates sign before the press a plaidoyer for the environment.

http://www.pacte-ecologique.org/index.php

We also had an umbrella-NGO called the "alliance for the planet" bringing our main environmental NGOs together, analysing in depth the environmental impact of the programmes, giving notes, and putting the results on a website for the public.

http://lalliance.fr/archives/lalliance2007/indexf824.html ...

I believe you guys should find your own ideas to make things move in this campaign...

For your information, I recently found a nice resource on Big Oil and candidates :
http://oilmoney.priceofoil.org/federalRaceGraph.php

It's not just the americans who will be impacted by these elections, it's the whole planet's environment...

"the real challenge is to switch from a society of owning to a society of being" N. Hulot

by jpmy at 11:04 AM on 25 Feb 2008

Ralph bashers = whiners = democrats

The democrats stood by and let the travesties of the past seven years happen. Not Nader. If you want to pin blame, where were the democrats during the vote fraud scandals of 2000 and 2004? Where were the democrats after a supreme court appointed the president in 2000? Why haven't the democrats tried to do away with the electoral college? If you don't like hearing what Nader has to say, it's probably because you're not listening to him.

by Hombre Secreto at 12:52 PM on 25 Feb 2008

Nader the spoiler- not

While my first thought was Ralph go away. No one forced anyone to vote for him back in 2000. Had Gore run a better campaign and run on the successes of the previous 8 years rather than run away from them then Nader's numbers would not have mattered. While it may have been close in Florida, had Gore done better in some of the other closer states the supreme court would have never had thier opportunity.

by jasper at 1:33 PM on 25 Feb 2008

Ralph, why pop up every 4 years?

I know, it's because it's the only way you can get your messages heard. But if you stay in the "race" for the White House, you'll only hurt our chances for fair and just Supreme Court appointees, to repeal the so-called Patriot Act and protect our remaining freedoms, continued safe reproductive choices for women, et al.

Ralph, I for one am very glad Al Gore didn't try to run for president again because he's been and will be more effective in promoting green alternatives (look at what he's accomplished already!). You, sir, have done the same and reach even greater heights, if you put your energy into it.

I support what you stand for but please don't stand in the way of what may be our best chance of redemption nationally and around the world.

Be thy own self be true so you will be true to the world.

by ChiefRabbit at 3:13 PM on 25 Feb 2008

Nader sure was a good President (-tial candidate)

Well, it sure is interesting to see how riled up people get about Mr. Nader and his habit of running for President of the United States. But that's totally understandable to me, because I think most people accept a basic premise about Mr. Nader's 2000 campaign. That being:
a) No one really thought he had a chance at being elected president
b) Most people thought he was an indispensable part of George W. Bush being elected president

Now, that is just my own un-scientific ascertation, but I don't think its too wildly far-fetched. Point being: Al Gore lost the Florida vote recount by some 500+ votes in favor of George W. Bush. Ralph Nader garnered some 97,000 votes in that fine state. Now, you might say at this point that these nearly one-hundred thousand Nader voters wouldn't have voted for Gore anyway, but I'd say its a stretch to assume that 97,000 principled people, alternatively given a choice between Al Gore and George W. Bush, would have stayed home and said 'to hell with voting', or would have voted for George W. Bush, the candidate most opposed to their views. Hey hey, whoa, I didn't just make that up. That's what exit polls gathered; that 48 per cent of 2000 Nader voters would have otherwise voted for Al Gore. That 23 per cent would have voted for George W. Bush. And the rest would have done "other". Like, perhaps, writing in Yoda on the ballot or stayed at home pining for a perfect democracy. It doesn't take Pythagoras to work out that equation.

And I know. The arguments for voting for Nader in 2000 abounded, such as...

In a democracy, voters can choose the candidate most aligned with their values.
Voters should choose a President who will protect the environment and attack corporations who seek to degrade the environment and exploit labor.
Mr. Nader has 'elevated the discourse' in this campaign.

OK that's all fine and good. I'm a progressive, and I jive with alot of Mr. Nader's stances. But I can't go all the way with Ralph. Here are the answers to those very questions I asked myself in 2000:

Sure and True. (And it'd be swell if that didn't play into the hands of the politicians most opposed to the progressive movement)
Yes. And is the best approach to this through public office or through running for public office every four years?
Huh? If the three word phrase, 'elevating the discourse' were as important as another three word phrase that creeps its way into politics, say, ' commander-in-chief', than I might be comforted by that rhetorical flourish.

Really, though, my personal malaise with Mr Nader exists via his fairy-tale assertion that 'there really isn't much difference between the two on the major issues.', referring to Gore and Bush in the 2000 campaign.
Really? I know they say that hindsight is 20/20 and nobody can fault Mr. Nader for not having a properly functioning crystal ball,
but this statement strains credulity.

Let's examine their accomplishments since 2000 in a mix-and-match format:

a) George W. Bush
b) Ralph Nader
c) Al Gore

------------------

a) started some awesome wars and accomplished a record national deficit
b) won a Nobel Peace Prize and became an international environmental spokesperson
c) did something (exactly what?) against corporations until the Year of the Rat ended the long wait until the next presidential election

------------------

Mix and match and have fun! There are only right and wrong answers in this exercise. But sadly its not so in politics.

Which comes back to the point of this post.
I have to agree with "jpmy" , from France, in saying: It's not just the americans who will be impacted by these elections, it's the whole planet's environment..."
I live in Poland, and people here wonder: "What influence is the next President of the United States of America going to have in the world?"
Well?
The answer is: a fu*king huge influence, as always.

by bobbyvee at 5:10 PM on 25 Feb 2008

let the man run if he wants

Nader has the democratic right to run if he wants to.

At least Nader doesn't accept corporate money unlike the Mr. Obama:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&am ...

by GreenNPR at 6:20 PM on 25 Feb 2008

The Major Parties Are Just Gangs

It's almost amusing to see the hysterical and fanatic attacks against Ralph Nader every time he runs for president. Those who identify with and/or support the Democratic gang don't like anyone infringing on their turf. Because of our defective electoral system, many progressives identify with this gang, because the other major gang is even worse. However, this is a fool's strategy. As can be clearly seen in retrospect, supporting the lesser of evils just results in evil; the Democratic Party has shifted significantly to the right over the past 30 years, and a major reason for that shift is that the party leaders know they can take the progressive vote for granted.

Well, they can't take my vote for granted. The last time I voted for a Democrat for president was George McGovern in 1972, and McGovern's presidential bid was sabotaged by the jerks who run the party and refused to support his candidacy. Since then, the Democrats have not nominated a presidential candidate who espouses any significant views that I have about war or the environment, the two issues on which I base my vote for federal offices. Now, if the Democrats were to nominate Dennis Kucinich, I'd vote Democratic. I would even consider voting for John Edwards. But Clinton or Obama? Gore? Kerry? You've got to be kidding! These people are all highly pro-corporate and support U.S. imperialism, and wouldn't do anything I support.

So, all of you who are so pissed that Nader is running again, convince me why I should vote Democratic. Seriously. If you make a legitimate argument, maybe you'll even convince me. But over years of these discussions, I've never seen anything that approaches changing my mind. And don't bother trying to convince me about lesser of two evils, I'm a no compromise kind of wolverine.

by Wolverine at 6:40 PM on 25 Feb 2008

re: easy to be pure

You are entirely correct about the safety and comfort of not having a chance. When one isn't even at the negotiating table, there is no need to think about which item of value one must give up in order to secure another. That is the kind of problem faced when you finally get in the game.

Before going further about how to get in the game, I would ask if the positions taken by Nader are worth pursuing. If "90% of U.S. voters" disagree with the positions, then probably not. However, I suspect that on the issues, Nader's views are, in general, fairly popular. Examples include (from Nader's campaign site):

No to nuclear power, solar energy first
Adopt single payer national health insurance
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare

So for us comfortable Naderites (many of whom were likely recent Kucinichites), the question is, how can we gather up the support of people who support our platform and get in the game? Then we can worry about which items to keep and which ones to give up.

When I see all the attacks against Nader related to the 2000 election, his ego etc. I think its a real shame. It is less about how disrespectful people are being to someone who is trying to help and more about the missed opportunity for our country. The message from 2000 should have been, "Wow, we got a lot of votes!" "How can we capitalize on this" "How can we get some candidates who are more appealing than Ralph to move this agenda forward?" "How can we hold the Democrats feet to the fire with this big voting bloc we've developed?"

These are the types of questions the "street fighters" eriqa refers to would ask. Instead, what we get is an attitude of giving up and accepting a crop of democratic candidates that are only slightly differentiated from the republican nominee.

Politics is a long, slow process. If we never take a stand for what we believe in, we will never achieve success.

by nunyerbus at 6:00 AM on 26 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

Same Ol', Same Ol'

If all your going to do is Re-Gurgitate what has already been said, or some talk radio hosts words, not your own, please spare us!!!

Gore WON in 2000! (popular vote). If we had worked withthe Green Party and had Instant Runoff voting, or 'clean elections', he would have been President! (and exactly what has the Democratic Party done to fix our voting system?)

I for one, voted for Gore (I liked his lock-box), volunteered and donated to Kerry (very Green), and CAN NOT vote for either Hillary or Obama!
Not because of Gender/or Race; Based on the ISSUES! (ya know those things we hear so little about these days) Both 'D' candidates (McCain isn't even up for discussion), ARE Corporte/Centrists! Both a for Nuclear Power, and Coal! Both are for 'Free' trade (not Fair), Both are for Corporate De-Regulation, (NOT Media Reform) Obama wants to start: Private Retirement Accts (just like Bush)& cut Social Security Benefits by 45%!!
* The Nation mag. article by Max Fraser,
'Subprime Obama' 'three chief economic adviser's'
google them Cutler, Goolsbee, and Liebman!

I Will NOT give up my right to vote, just because I can't and won't vote Demacratic! I should in a democracy have the right to choose!! I'm not taking a vote away from anyone! My choose is to stay home (NOT), or vote third party!

Go to the Green Party web site, monthly meetings and 85 candidates! A Real Progressive Platform!
or www.votesmart.org

**Country Before Party** GO GREEN (Party!)

by AndieG at 6:30 AM on 26 Feb 2008

Ralph Run? Where? Why?

See Ralph. See Ralph run! See Ralph run fast! I wonder how much the Republicans are paying Ralph to make a fool of himself... I think the only place Ralphie is running is to the bank that holds his secret accounts... to deposit a big, big check.

by trailhikingal at 9:53 AM on 26 Feb 2008

Nadar Redux

By the time Obama supporters realize this guy is almost as underqualified for the job as W (but smarter, of course), he'll be the nominee and defectors from his camp to Nadar will give us more years of conservative/corporate hell.

I think Nadar is a closet Republican.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. --William Pitt

by nytwings at 10:20 AM on 26 Feb 2008

Nader Deserves A Chance to Run and So Do You

Nader deserves a chance to run and put his ideas in the forefront. Whether or not he prevented Gore from winning an election is hardly a consideration. And those that would deny him the chance to run and just facists.
Unlike the Republican or Democratic candidates, Nader is the only one not owned by corporations. I do not like being ruled by dishonest corporations and right-wing nuts: the current situation. Gore would have been an improvement over Bush, but a vacancy in the office would also have been better.

by mrbball at 10:49 AM on 26 Feb 2008

Nader:Self-Absorbed Jerk

Gonzo, since I couldn't say it more succinctly, kudos 2 u!

by wildhawk905 at 11:02 AM on 26 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

Well of course,

Nader has the "right" to run an independent campaign for prez of the United States.

So does Kucinich. And Edwards. And Al Sharpton. And Lieberman. And Al Gore. And any of the 50 state governors.

But they are not all running their own independent campaigns. Why? Because (a) they know it would create chaos under our current electoral system -- that's why we have primaries, for God's sake, and (b) they all realize that politics in the real world requires compromises and incremental changes.

Show me a politician or political party who always gets what he/she wants, and I'll show you a dictatorship. Sorry, that sucks, but it's just the way the real world works.

As much as many of us -- me included -- would love to see the current corporately-controlled system torn down to it's roots and re-built, the reality is that such change will never happen overnight. If we're lucky, it will happen within my lifetime.

That means making pragmatic progress, today, one step at a time. Getting justices on the Supreme Court who value the Constitution above partisan politics. Getting bureaucrats into government who are eager to see gov't programs work, rather than loot the system for themselves and their cronies. Giving control of the public airwaves back to the public, rather than the pharmeceutical companies and SUV manufacturers.

These are all incremental but achievable changes within the next presidential administration -- but not if the Republicans maintain control.

I respect Nader greatly for all he has done and achieved in his life. At this particular juncture, though, we need to start pushing America back toward the center -- with the rule of law put back in place, and with government agencies actually doing the job they were created to do -- before we can even think about turning Joe Six-pack into a tree-hugging progressive eager to stick it to the Man.

Yeah, I'd enjoy seeing Nader as president. But it's never gonna happen in my lifetime. Therefore I'll settle for the next best thing, which is laying the groundwork that makes it possible for a Nader-like candidate to become president within my children's lifetimes. It couldn't happen today, but it could happen tomorrow.

by GonzoDon at 12:37 PM on 26 Feb 2008

Nader needs to get over himself

I agree with Davedenali. He won't tip the election because he will get votes from people that are so far out on the margin that they are meaningless in the election. Nader is not significant anymore. People learned in 2000 that Democrats and Republicans and not the same. there a a few that still love Nader that way but they are few and would not have voted anyway.

Would I support a ban on campaign contributions? yes.
Would I support runoff elections?
yes.
Do I think a vote for Nader has any value at all in the meantime.
No.

Nader isn't going to end the war because he isn't going to be elected president.

by hikerreese at 11:49 PM on 26 Feb 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?