Nader 08

[bjorn_skurj]

I have no problem with him or anyone else running for office. The only probel I had with this thread is the utterly false assertion that democrats and republicans have little difference between them.

If you are looking to completely re-do the political structure of this country, as Nader and his -ites look to do, then there isn't a ton of difference between the Dems and GOP. If you are enlisted in the nation's military or are an Iraqi, then there's quite a bit of difference.

[Tweedling]

Run Nader Run!

[myboyblue]

Having more viable candidates for 2008 will render Nader a bit less significant.

 

As usual, you nailed it on the head.

 

 

Seriously, Nader is completely wasting his time and efforts. I personally don't think he'll have any impact on the race. We have the most viable candidates that we have had in many, many years. Nader is becoming an insignificant parody of himself.

[Lammycat]

As usual, you nailed it on the head.

 

 

Seriously, Nader is completely wasting his time and efforts. I personally don't think he'll have any impact on the race. We have the most viable candidates that we have had in many, many years. Nader is becoming an insignificant parody of himself.

I thought he hit Ross Perot lunatic fringe/comic relief territory years ago.

[Good Old Neon]

I thought he hit Ross Perot lunatic fringe/comic relief territory years ago.

 

Says the fella with the Hunter Thompson avatar.....

 

I keed, I keed - I'm a huge Hunter fan.

[Griddles]

What I do not get is that even though Nader will not win, and in my opinion take votes for either major candidate, is why no one talks about the at least 8 other parties placing candidates on the ballot. These parties ranging from the National Socialist Party (not Nazi's), to the Libertarians, are all running against the major parties, and yet there is no discussion, here, much less in the mass media. Not one of these people have a chance to be president, just like Nader, but none of them are being attacked by the major party candidates for exercising their rights as Americans?

 

Also, what did McCain have to say about Nader entering the race? Is Bloomberg still being coy about running?

[Edie]

To Nader running again, I give you

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

 

Until there is a clear and present danger of the US being attacked by rogue militant Corvairs, I will not vote for him.

 

This is one of the most awesome things you have ever said (among many awesome things).

 

 

Seriously, Nader is completely wasting his time and efforts. I personally don't think he'll have any impact on the race. We have the most viable candidates that we have had in many, many years. Nader is becoming an insignificant parody of himself.

 

Bingo. Is he even in a party -- or simply independent?

[Dreamin']

Nader Runs, Obama Responds Wisely

 

Nader is running for the same reason he has run in the past: Because the likely nominees of the two major parties do not begin to meet the standards that might reasonably be asked of progressive contenders in 21st-century America.

 

Fundamental issues -- Wall Street-defined globalization' date=' rampant and frequently deadly corporate crime, out-of-control military spending and an imperial foreign policy -- are not going to be addressed in a realistic let alone definitional manner by the Democratic nominee (be he Barack Obama or be she Hillary Clinton) or by Republican John McCain. And that, says Nader, will leave millions of Americans feeling frustrated and disenfranchised.

 

"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he explained on NBC's "Meet the Press," the same forum where he announced his 2004 presidential run. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."

 

Nader's points are all well taken.

 

And they come from a man who is quite rational in his awareness that he will not be sworn in as president on January 20, 2009.

 

While Nader has yet to determine whether he will run as the Green Party candidate, a Green-backed independent or a genuinely unaffiliated independent, he is clear about his chances.

 

The arc of history bends toward Obama and the Democrats, not his candidate, acknowledges Nader.

 

After eight years of George Bush and Dick Cheney, he said, "If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form. You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication he's the candidate for perpetual war?"

 

Presumably, the Democratic landslide that buries McCain will also sweep away various and sundry third-party and independent candidacies, including Nader's.

 

If that is the case, it will not be a new phenomenon.

 

Nader has bid for the presidency in different ways in every election since 1992 -- as a write-in candidate in the New Hampshire and Massachusetts primaries of that year, as a Green contender in 1996 and 2000 and as an independent with support from some of what remained of Ross Perot's Reform Party in 2004. His most notable run, in 2000, won 2.7 percent of the national vote, along with anger from Democrats who thought he "spoiled" their chances by tipping Florida -- and the presidency -- from Al Gore to George Bush. In fact, Gore won Florida, only to have the results manipulated into Bush's column by the Republican nominee's many allies in state government, with an assist from the Supreme Court.

 

In the intense 2004 competition between Bush and Democratic John Kerry, Nader's run won just 0.3 percent on 34 state ballot lines.

 

This year, Nader could have a harder time of it even than he did in 2000 or 2004.

 

Unlike Gore and Kerry, Obama -- now the likely Democratic nominee -- has taken savvier stands on a number of issues close to Nader's heart, such as trade policy. This is not to say that Obama is as good as Nader on the issues. Far from it. But Obama's more nuanced platform, as well as the movement character of the Illinois senator's campaign, is likely to leave even less space for Nader to deliver a message.

 

That said, [b']Nader is a determined, sometimes unrelenting, truth teller. [/b]

 

He notes that Obama is something less than a pristine progressive.

 

Obama may be "the first liberal evangelist in a long time," says Nader, but the senator's "better instincts and knowledge have been censored" since he hit the nation stage.

 

"(Obama's) leaned, if anything, toward the pro-corporate side of policy-making," Nader said of the senator from Illinois. The consumer activist also scored Obama on on foreign policy, noting that, "He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois... Now he's supporting (right-wing Israeli policies that thwart progress toward peace in the Middle East)."

 

Such blunt statements may not win Nader many friends among Obama's enthusiastic backers, and Obama did not exactly welcome his new rival to the race. "Ralph Nader deserves enormous credit for the work he did as a consumer advocate," Mr. Obama said while campaigning in Ohio "But his function as a perennial candidate is not putting food on the table of workers."

 

But Nader's not looking for Valentines from the Democrats.

 

Frankly, he's not even all that interested in popular approval.

 

The public-interest crusader worries far less about poll numbers and even vote totals than about saying what he feels needs to be said -- and using the forum of the electoral process to say it. And he is certainly not the first progressive -- inside the Democratic Party or out -- to suggest that Obama needs to be prodded on issues ranging from labor law to corporate regulation to single-payer health care and Middle East policy.

 

Nader's greatest value in any race is -- like Socialist Norman Thomas in his races against Democratic Franklin Roosevelt -- as a source of pressure on the Democratic nominee to address fundamental questions and perhaps to take more progressive stands on a few issues. As in 2000 and 2004, Nader's appeal will be determined in large part by the extent to which the Democratic candidate is willing to be bold.

 

Obama seems to understands this. Unlike Gore or Kerry, who never quite "got" the point of Nader's runs in 2000 and 2004, the Illinois senator appears to recognize that it is pointless to grumble about Ralph Nader as a "spoiler." Rather, the point is to be more appealing to progressive voters who might consider voting Green or independent. "I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference," says Obama.

 

That is the bottom line with regard to Nader's latest bid.

 

If Obama runs as a progressive, Nader will have little room to maneuver. If Obama runs to the center, Nader's space will open up -- a bit.

 

[Mr. Kinsley]

What I don't get is (for lack of a better term) "fringe" or "issue" candidates. Not just 3rd party, but guys like Tancredo or Duncan Hunter who ran on a solely immigration platform with no real hope of getting elected. Why go through all that and spend millions of dollars, millions that even Nader would probably acknowledge could be better spent, when you know you in all likelyhood won't win? Why is Huckabee still in? Even if he got 100% of the remaining delegates he wouldn't win!

 

A 3rd party could totally catch fire and win the thing at some point, so I'm not saying Nader shouldn't run, I just don't get why he is.

[Dreamin']

What I don't get is (for lack of a better term) "fringe" or "issue" candidates. Not just 3rd party, but guys like Tancredo or Duncan Hunter who ran on a solely immigration platform with no real hope of getting elected. Why go through all that and spend millions of dollars, millions that even Nader would probably acknowledge could be better spent, when you know you in all likelyhood won't win? Why is Huckabee still in? Even if he got 100% of the remaining delegates he wouldn't win!

 

A 3rd party could totally catch fire and win the thing at some point, so I'm not saying Nader shouldn't run, I just don't get why he is.

It's not about winning, it's about holding the Dem's feet to the fire. And they don't like that.

 

If Edwards or Kucinich had won the nomination, Nader would not run against them in 2008. (He endorsed Edwards.)

[Good Old Neon]

It's not about winning, it's about holding the Dem's feet to the fire. And they don't like that.

 

Bingo.

[EL the Famous]

...but why doesn't he do more to publicly create a change in policy by actively working on it outside of his presidential bids as well? an election's official purpose is to elect an official...if he really has no intent of wanting to be elected president, then why run? how effective have his previous bids been in changing policy?

 

again, i have no problem w/ him running if he actually wanted to be president.

[MrRain422]

I have no problem with him running even if he does not want to be president, if he thinks he can introduce some important issues into the discussion. I just don't think there's any reason to really believe that he can.

 

The way to build up a viable third party is not to run the same presidential campaign every four years and then disappear until the next election. Nader still has a lot of respect from lots of grassroots type organizations, but is looked at as a bit of a joke on the national stage. His experience, connections, etc. could be of better use if he'd direct his efforts towards bottoms up organization. Get people involved at the local level, get those local groups to work together into something larger, and work to help it grow into a national party (which should eventually run a candidate who is not Ralph Nader). Rally support from enthusiastic young people and work on developing leadership skills among a new crop of foot soldiers and see what happens. Nader will have virtually no impact on the 2008 race, but if he could focus his efforts more on party building, he could have a huge impact in 2012 or 2016.

[EL the Famous]

The way to build up a viable third party is not to run the same presidential campaign every four years and then disappear until the next election.

 

exactly.

[Good Old Neon]

I have no problem with him running even if he does not want to be president, if he thinks he can introduce some important issues into the discussion. I just don't think there's any reason to really believe that he can.

 

Well he could, but the democrats are gloating over the fact that he may not make it on the ballot in all 50 states, and, have actively done their part to ensure he is not invited to or allowed to attend nationally televised debates. Which is sort of like why many fighters did not want to take on Tyson in his prime, for fear of getting their asses kicked.

[EL the Famous]

Well he could, but the democrats are gloating over the fact that he may not make it on the ballot in all 50 states, and, have actively done their part to ensure he is not invited to or allowed to attend nationally televised debates. Which is sort of like why many fighters did not want to take on Tyson in his prime, for fear of getting their asses kicked.

 

yes. nader would mop the floor with them in a landslide defeat. proven to be true.

[Sir Stewart]

Barack Obama is no Hurricane Peter McNeely.

[EL the Famous]

larenz tate?

[cryptique]

Barack Obama is no Hurricane Peter McNeely.

How does he compare to Timmy the Twister?

[bjorn_skurj]

It's not about winning, it's about holding the Dem's feet to the fire. And they don't like that.

 

If Edwards or Kucinich had won the nomination, Nader would not run against them in 2008. (He endorsed Edwards.)

Somehow, I don't think it's lack of revolutionary zeal that is preventing the Democratic Party from reaching its goals. It is the fact that the Democrats just don't have the numbers in Congress to override Bush's vetoes. While I expect Nader to have little or no impact on the final outcome, he's not really a help in that regard, and his views are, to put it mildly, out of step with the views of most Americans. Center-left is about as far as this country's gonna go, and maybe not even that far, barring a Great Depression-type scenario. And if you put THAT much stress on the American people, we are just as likely, if not more likely, to go the other way. (See Germany, 1930s.) So be careful what you wish for, Nader-lovers. A country where his ideas really start to resonate is a country in very deep shit indeed.