Nader Announces New Bid for White House

Why doesn't he run for congress or something and effect change there instead of effing with the presidential election.

Congress would mean running in only one state, which is not enough exposure to satisfy his ego.

-J

Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will "shift the power from the few to the many."

Let's rephrase that last part...

...pledging to repeat a bid that will "shift the power from the democrats to the Republicans by splitting the vote."

Nader...the Republicans secret weapon.

Jal Jones:

The only annoying thing here are the knee jerk apologists who think that the democratic party has the right to continue to be an opposition party, when in fact it is corrupt through and through. Now try some real arguments here. How about the right of people to vote for real choices. I was for Kucinich, even though I knew that the corrupt corporate class hiearchy of the democratic party and the corrupt corporate press did everthing to undermine his position. I prefer principle over corruption, despotism, whether democratic or republican false choices.

i love this guy. he is great. Run Ralph run!

The only annoying thing here are the knee jerk apologists who think that the democratic party has the right to continue to be an opposition party, when in fact it is corrupt through and through.

All parties are. History has shown, time and time again, anyone who promises change ends up being the same as, or worse, than their predecessor.

No system can change that without fundamentally changing what it means to be a human being.

Deep Thought;

We have had these discussions before, and apparently you do not read any of them. Class corruption is not Human nature asserting itself, but a class system that subordinates Human nature.

Your absolutly right.

And GOOD POINT ... if he were really serious about getting something done about the things that are wrong in this country, he should have run for Congress. It would have been a good way for him to put some of his consumer advocate issues into law.

Trust me on this one: A dead giveaway on WHY Nader is running again, and it comes right from his own mouth.

'"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form," Nader said.'

When Nader says this, he implies that he hasn't a chance in hell of actually winning, or even making it a close election.

So...ask yourself for a moment what he has to gain, besides press coverage.

Answer: Federal Matching Campaign Funds. If he gets (I think) at least 2% of the vote, then he qualifies. I see no other motivation here.

Sorry about the double post, but I thought you should see the official rules on Matching Funds:

'To become eligible for matching funds, candidates must raise a threshold amount of $100,000 by collecting $5,000 in 20 different states in amounts no greater than $250 from any individual. Other requirements to be declared eligible include agreeing to an overall spending limit of approximately $50 million, abiding by spending limits in each state, using public funds only for legitimate campaign-related expenses, keeping financial records and permitting an extensive campaign audit.

Based on documents filed by the Tancredo campaign on August 28, 2007, contributions from the following states were verified for threshold purposes: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. Materials included with this submission may be viewed on the Internet.

Once declared eligible, campaigns may submit additional contributions for matching funds on the first business day of every month. The U.S. Treasury Department may pay the FEC-certified amounts beginning in January 2008. The maximum amount a candidate could receive is currently estimated to be about $21 million.

The Presidential public funding program is financed through the $3 check-off that appears on individual income tax returns. The program has three elements: grants to parties to help fund their nominating conventions, grants available to nominees to pay for the general election campaign, and matching payments to participating candidates during the primary campaign.'

The 'Tancredo' reference is the name of a candidate who applied for funds last year. I don't know the guy, but he must be on the ballot or something...

So...this means Nader, having already talked about the Dems 'landsliding' in November, is simply using his candidacy to pick the pocket where you keep the money to pay your taxes...

I think Nader has an excellent chance of an out-and-out win. Then again, I'm absolutely dumbfounded that anyone could consider Hillary or McCain so I'm seldom shocked by stupidity anymore.

Where's Kevin?...the Green party needs his services!

I think Nader has an excellent chance of an out-and-out win.

A chance that is par with Huckabee's getting both the nomination and an endorsement from NOW.

- J

Nader is the most high profile person the Green Party can get to be their candidate. The Green Party is actually a separate party from the Democratic Party, and its members would be voting Green regardless of who ran. If people the Democrats think they own vote Green, that is their right, and they are to be viewed the same as anyone else who voted their conscience.

Daniell:

Another mindless remark. Someone else called him antiquated. My response was that the corporate imperial class parties, class ideologies, imperial and proto fascist polcies of both parties are even more antiquated, older than Nader's age, which has nothing to do with his opposition, which is principled against the antiquated corrupt, imperial parties that got us into Iraq, Vietnam. Time for some rational arguments here.

Nader's nader.

This man has a lot of blood on his hands and apparently it's not enough.

In the real world, adults know that half a loaf is better than none. That's why he doesn't get it. While Nadar strives for his "perfect" political scenario, many will die. Innocent people will die because Nader's only possible effect in this folly will be to continue the reign of terror via the Republican war mongers.

On top of that he is corrupt. He'll take money from anyone who'll listen. Even Republicans, who are only too glad to help in his "cause"

So, let's apply the same questions to Ralphie that we ask the other candidates:

What is your legislative experience?

What change have you affected in either Federal or state level policies in the past 20 years?

Explain your positions on the following subjects: Iraq war, immigration, MidEast politics or climate change.

Just who are you running for?

Jimster:

The only blood I see are the bloody, appeasing corporate and fascist class elites who went along with imperialism. That was not Nader, that was the democratic party which even had the nerve to go along with nuclear aggression against Iran, based on the same pack of lies. It amazes me how liberal class appeasers never see the blood and criminality of their own liberal class whores, and then try to blame the Iraq war on Nader. That is duplicitous, cynical and deceitful.

Eric:

Another mindless remark. Someone else called him antiquated. My response was that the corporate imperial class parties, class ideologies, imperial and proto fascist polcies of both parties are even more antiquated, older than Nader's age, which has nothing to do with his opposition, which is principled against the antiquated corrupt, imperial parties that got us into Iraq, Vietnam. Time for some rational arguments here.

Nader caused all of this imperialism that you're pissing and moaning about. If you think that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq you have lost your mind, Eric.

Nader...the Republicans secret weapon.

Not such a secret weapon. Clearly he's a front man for the Republicans.

Actually, I don't think folks like Nader would exist without the big-business money-grubbing Republicans. It's in his best interest to keep them in power so he has something to rail against; it keeps food on his table.

It's in his best interest to keep them in power so he has something to rail against; it keeps food on his table.

Quite true. I don't see Nader doing much of anything anywhere - except to shake down politicians.

Eric@2.4-

• "The only blood I see are the bloody, appeasing corporate and fascist class elites"
• "liberal class appeasers never see the blood and criminality of their own liberal class whores"

From: Wikipedia:

Personal Finances According to the mandatory fiscal disclosure report that he filed with the Federal Election Commission in 2000, he then owned more than $3 million worth of stocks and mutual fund shares; his single largest holding was more than $1 million worth of stock in Cisco Systems, Inc. He also held more than $2 million in two money market funds...

From: The New York times June 19, 2000

Ralph Nader, the Green Party presidential contender and consumer advocate, is worth millions thanks to investments in high-tech companies , according to published reports....

...Despite what appears to be a new openness forced by his presidential bid, Mr. Nader said he would not release his personal income tax returns.

''Assuring privacy rights for all Americans has been one of my active engagements for many years,'' he said.

So 'ol Ralph is an owner of corporations to the tune of millions of dollars? Huh, who knew? Apparently you didn't.

So the way I see it, given all of the above, is:

1. Ralph Nader is a "bloody, appeasing corporate class elite", and
2. you are one of those liberal class appeasers , who
3. never sees the blood and criminality of his own liberal class whores

Don't even get me started on the blood spilled by Marxists

On top of that he is corrupt. He'll take money from anyone who'll listen. Even Republicans, who are only too glad to help in his "cause"

And he differs from Obama in WHAT WAY?.....You were saying?

Scott

If you think that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq you have lost your mind, Eric.

Heh. I'm not so sure -- if the second half of this video's any indication.

What change have you affected in either Federal or state level policies in the past 20 years?

I think he's effected more change in those policies than any of the other candidates. Look him up if you don't know about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

In 1999 an NYU panel of eminent journalists ranked Nader's book Unsafe At Any Speed no. 38 among the top 100 pieces of journalism of the 20th century.[11] In 1990 Life Magazine,[12] and again in 1999 Time Magazine, [13][14] named Nader one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th Century.

In 1980, Nader resigned as director of Public Citizen to work on other projects, forcefully campaigning against what he believed to be the dangers of large multinational corporations. He went on to start a variety of non-profit organizations:

* Capitol Hill News Service * Citizen Advocacy Center * Citizens Utility Boards * Congress Accountability Project * Consumer Task Force For Automotive Issues * Corporate Accountability Research Project * Disability Rights Center * Equal Justice Foundation * Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights * Georgia Legal Watch * National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform * National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest * Pension Rights Center * PROD (truck safety) * Retired Professionals Action Group * The Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest * 1969: Center for the Study of Responsive Law * 1970s: Public Interest Research Groups * 1970: Center for Auto Safety * 1970: Connecticut Citizen Action Group * 1971: Aviation Consumer Action Project * 1972: Clean Water Action Project * 1972: Center for Women's Policy Studies * 1980: Multinational Monitor (magazine covering multinational corporations) * 1982: Trial Lawyers for Public Justice * 1982: Essential Information (encourage citizen activism and do investigative journalism) * 1983: Telecommunications Research and Action Center * 1983: National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest * 1989: Princeton Project 55 (alumni public service) * 1993: Appleseed Foundation (local change) * 1994: Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees) * 1995: Center for Insurance Research * 1995: Consumer Project on Technology * 1997?: Government Purchasing Project (encourage the government to purchase safe and healthy products) * 1998: Center for Justice and Democracy * 1998: Organization for Competitive Markets * 1998: American Antitrust Institute (ensure fair competition) * 1999?: Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest * 1999?: Commercial Alert (protect family, community, and democracy from corporations) * 2000: Congressional Accountability Project (fight corruption in Congress) * 2001: Citizen Works (promote NGO cooperation, build grassroots support, and start new groups) * 2001: Democracy Rising (hold rallies to educate and empower citizens)

Nothing since 2001, Brian?

Nothing on the wikipedia page. I have no clue about what he's been up to - I detest his politics. However, pretending he hasn't been monumentally influential on both federal and state policies (in the wrong direction) is ridiculous.

That's a nice list ... but what have they ACCOMPLISHED? I don't see a single citation of policy affected by Nader, just a work resume.

C'mon you can come up with a couple of those, seeing how he is "one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th Century."

BTW, Unsafe at Any Speed was published in 1965.

Come on. Are you unable to follow a link and glance over the page on your own? Do you need me to read it to you aloud? I am not a Nader fan but it is ridiculous everyone is acting as if you'd never heard of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader once again:

Nader's advocacy of automobile safety and the publicity generated by the publication of Unsafe at Any Speed, along with concern over escalating nationwide traffic fatalities, led to the unanimous passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act established the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and marked an historic shift in responsibility for automobile safety from the consumer to the manufacturer. The legislation mandated a series of safety features for automobiles, beginning with safety belts and stronger windshields.[23][24][25]
...

Today, Public Citizen has over 140,000 members and scores of researchers investigating Congressional, health, environmental, economic and other issues. Their work is credited with facilitating the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and prompting the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

So you've got the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Freedom of Information Act, OSHA, the EPA, and the CPSC. Except for FOIA, I disagree violently with all those agencies/acts, but they're typically the government agencies/acts most admired by liberals.

Brian, I think it's great that you're teaching about a candidate you hate, to a person who should love said candidate. I admire your effort.

Come on. Are you unable to follow a link and glance over the page on your own?

Are you able to stay within the boundaries of the challenge? To wit:

What change have you affected in either Federal or state level policies in the past 20 years?

1966 is 42 years ago.

What change have you affected in either Federal or state level policies in the past 20 years?

This is a ridiculous question for a couple of reasons:

1) In recent years, he's been more concerned with spreading to the masses the warning that corporations are taking over the government - which is the entire point of his presidential campaign; all the other problems can be directly tied to corporate influence. So if the agencies he played a major role in creating -agencies that still exist today; every time the Freedom of Information Act is implemented, whether it be today or 20 years ago, you have Nader to thank - aren't enough, know that not everything can be measured in numbers of bills signed.

2) America: @!$%# you Ralph Nader, we don't want you.
Ralph Nader: I'm running for president!
America: Ralph Nader, we don't care about anything you have to say.
Ralph Nader: You should take me seriously. The corporate threat is real!
America: Oh yeah? Well where have you been lately? Why haven't you been doing anything about it?

Americans @!$%# on Nader when he tries to make a difference, then criticize him for not making a difference.

On a side note, can you provide an example of policy that you support brought on by Obama?

On a side note, can you provide an example of policy that you support brought on by Obama?

Yada yada. This is about Nader, not Obama. Change the topic, nice try.

You're right it's about Nader. I'm asking why a criticism applies to Nader and not Obama. Did you have anything else of substance to respond with? There were other things in my post I think were worth addressing.

Adam, I agree that Ralph Nader has served his country well. As you have pointed out, he has been an active force in the consumerist and environmental issues.

I guess my problem is that I just heave not heard from him of late ... until now. He's rather late getting into the race. Maybe its just (the lack of) press coverage, but he hasn't done anything lately. It makes me think he's resting on his laurels....

Let's face it, a Nader win in the presidential race is extremely unlikely, and that's putting it kindly. Even if elected, he has Congress to deal with, and getting real handles on corporate influence in our society would be almost impossible without a Green Party majority. And he has never seemed like on who could build coalitions and relationships to compromise for the overall good.

On the other hand, his votes made the difference in the 2000 election. I'm sure he is proud of playing the role of spoiler, and taking a pragmatic view, I'm not sure he's driven by anything else in 2008.

Obama has been in the race since May 2, 2007. His positions on issues such as Iraq, health care and ethics are documented. Actually, he same goes for Hillary and (god forbid) McCain. We know from what he's said, the Ralph Nader is concerned with Iraq, taxes, and corporate oversight ... but where are his specifics? How does he stand on Social Security, Medicare, and health care? What's his plan to get out of Iraq? How would he deal with Afghanistan? China? Right now, I can research these positions for each of the other candidates (including the ones who have already dropped out!) but have no information or sense of what Nader really stands for. Recently.

And those are legitimate questions. They, however, are not the same as:

What change have you affected in either Federal or state level policies in the past 20 years?

Sadly, you may have a hard time getting the answers you want from Nader. For one thing, he Web sites - www.nader.org and www.votenader.org - don't do a very good job compiling detailed plans in a very centralized manner. For another, the media won't cover him other than to further the partisan bull@!$%# surrounding the "Nader only exists to ruin the Democrats day" nonsense.

You should petition your presidential candidate of choice to allow Nader (and others) into debates. But you won't learn anything about Nader because the same corporations that own the Democratic and Republican parties also own virtually every powerful outlet of information.

I can provide you with a little more info on him.

Here is a list of issues on which he says he dramatically differs from the Republicans and Democrats. Poking around the Vote Nader site offers more background on him. Nader.org offers a good glimpse at the issues to which he pays a lot of thought and attention.

As for more detailed plans, here is a release from the 2004 Nader campaign outlining his health care plan - it pretty much falls in line with that of the Green Party. Here is a good summation of Nader's views on education.

Here is a compilation of info from various sources summing up Nader's views on foreign policy and the military (in short, he supports a rapid withdrawal from Iraq and peaceful negotiations with Iran). I can provide more if you want. Googling his name plus a particular issue can usually pull some info up - it's an inconvenience, sure, but that's because the corporations have to make it hard or people may stop voting for their pets.

Again, Nader's Web site could stand to have these things in a more centralized fashion ... but his campaign IS only two days old, remember.

Yes the joke is on all of you, who keep on insisting on voting for these corrupt class parties and class policies. You want change, but you vote for class corruption, class imperialism....and you wonder why nothing changes.

The only way this could be a better joke is if he chooses Ron Paul as his running mate.

That would be AWESOME!

Not awesome in the way that I would vote for him, but awesome in the way that monkeys through poop at each other awesome.

Eric:
Actually, the joke is on all of us that didn't want to hand the reins of power over to a Christian evangelical theocratic party. For the last 8 years, I just wanna say "THANKS RALPH NADER! BUSH NEVER COULD HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT YA!"

Not awesome in the way that I would vote for him, but awesome in the way that monkeys through poop at each other awesome.

Okay, that has to be the best comment EVER.

Do you guys remember the Supremes stopped the recount??

monkeys through poop at each other awesome.

Whatever this [above] means to you!...........Awesome man!

Ah, the old the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Irrational and mindless. Now look at how both parties have turned our system into a proto fascist state.

Rose 231178: I agree with you, he is "siphon"ing, vaccuming, the class rot of both parties. The problem is there are too many people participating in this rot, and therefore, he will not succeed in getting all of it.

The only reason you can determine for the Green Party to run their highest possible profile candidate is to throw the election to the Republicans? Did it ever occur to you that as a political party they want to run their candidate and get as many votes as possible?

There are 5 third parties running candidates in the 2008 election so far:

# 1 Constitution Party
# 2 Green Party
# 3 Libertarian Party
# 4 Prohibition Party
# 5 Socialist Party USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_presidential_candidates,_2008

Do you think they're all running to help the Republicans?

1) He's not a career politician
2) See 1.

Nader's parents were Lebanese immigrants who ran a restaurant. It's said that Nader had no toys as a child, because his mother thought toys were "a waste of time". In grade school, Nader had few friends, but one of them, David Halberstam, became a noted author, and won a Pulitzer Prize. At Princeton, Nader was a straight-A student who, in his spare time, organized an anti-DDT activist group. Once, leaving the Princeton campus for summer break in his 1949 Studebaker, Nader slammed on the brakes just in time to avoid the jaywalking Albert Einstein. He graduated summa cum laude with a degree in politics, writing a thesis on Lebanese Agriculture. Afterward he attended Harvard Law School and graduated with distinction.

He is basically an organizer who has never held public office to my knowledge.

No toys? That explains it...

The only constructive things he has to say sound like he is mimicking Obama.

Except he was saying them before you knew who Obama was. It would be more accurate to say Obama is mimicking Nader.

But go on thinking Nader has no impact.

1) He's not a career politician
2) See 1.

That sums up me as well. Can I count on your vote?

Or at least a donation?

Click Here To Donate to the Josh of Arc Campaign!

-J

Maybe, show me what you've done to make the world a better place and why I'd want you to be president.

Let's just start with this: Are you honest?

Let's just start with this: Are you honest?

Looking at the legalese on my campaign's donation page should help you with that:

All funds may or may not be used for an actual presidential bid. The candidate (Josh of Arc) reserves the right to give anything you give him to a local charity, pay his electric bill, or spend it on cheap hooch as well.

If that ain't honesty, what is?

-J

And continuing with the response:

Maybe, show me what you've done to make the world a better place

For starters I pay more in income tax than does the Exxon-Mobil corporation. Plus I have a really cool kid who I am raising not to be an @!$%#. Both of those count.

and why I'd want you to be president.

Simple, because I don't want to be president. Anyone who claims he or she wants to be president probably shouldn't be.

-J

James Andre:

In one breath you criticize Nader for criticizing, in the other breath you say he is saying the same thing Obama is sayinig. Does that mean Obama is ciritcizing too much?? Or are you just confused and dogmatic.

Reasons against:

1. He's a narcissist who cares primarily about stoking his own monumental ego.
2. See 1.

Simple, because I don't want to be president. Anyone who claims he or she wants to be president probably shouldn't be.

Crap. I am out.

Please see here for some of his qualifications.

True that, but Ralph Nader's candidacy is actually an endorsement for the 2 party system.

Thanks for the info about the Corvair in 1965. What the hell has he done since then?

- J

I find the fact that the democrats started whining about losing to McCain because of Nader revolting. Beat him because you're better or go home.

Go Ralph....

Excellent. About time. Go Ralph, Go. The 2 party system is unsafe at any speed.

Show'em you can walk on water too ...at any speed!

I don't think the Dems are "whinning" about loosing because of Nader ... the sipmle fact is, elections are a numbers game ..... and with this high profile third party candidate in the race, the results will be distorted in a way that will most likely favor the Republicans.

It's not "whinning" .... it's reality .... and the reality's in the math.

What the hell has he done since then?

Were any of you people alive in the 70s, 80s, or 90s? How could you not have heard of Nader's activities? Just look him up on wikipedia. He's hugely influential:

* Capitol Hill News Service * Citizen Advocacy Center * Citizens Utility Boards * Congress Accountability Project * Consumer Task Force For Automotive Issues * Corporate Accountability Research Project * Disability Rights Center * Equal Justice Foundation * Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights * Georgia Legal Watch * National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform * National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest * Pension Rights Center * PROD (truck safety) * Retired Professionals Action Group * The Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest * 1969: Center for the Study of Responsive Law * 1970s: Public Interest Research Groups * 1970: Center for Auto Safety * 1970: Connecticut Citizen Action Group * 1971: Aviation Consumer Action Project * 1972: Clean Water Action Project * 1972: Center for Women's Policy Studies * 1980: Multinational Monitor (magazine covering multinational corporations) * 1982: Trial Lawyers for Public Justice * 1982: Essential Information (encourage citizen activism and do investigative journalism) * 1983: Telecommunications Research and Action Center * 1983: National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest * 1989: Princeton Project 55 (alumni public service) * 1993: Appleseed Foundation (local change) * 1994: Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees) * 1995: Center for Insurance Research * 1995: Consumer Project on Technology * 1997?: Government Purchasing Project (encourage the government to purchase safe and healthy products) * 1998: Center for Justice and Democracy * 1998: Organization for Competitive Markets * 1998: American Antitrust Institute (ensure fair competition) * 1999?: Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest * 1999?: Commercial Alert (protect family, community, and democracy from corporations) * 2000: Congressional Accountability Project (fight corruption in Congress) * 2001: Citizen Works (promote NGO cooperation, build grassroots support, and start new groups) * 2001: Democracy Rising (hold rallies to educate and empower citizens)

Inaccurate headline, really,

Having a bad headline day ,I've noticed, Dennis?

Sorry, Ralph. Your ship has sailed.

That's exactly my take on this. To me, that ship was the Green Party, and he managed to sink it because of the 2000 election blame game. Of course, it's a bitter irony in that some Green card carriers want him back.

I agree Alexander except...ydon't think he's "siphoning votes" off McCain? I find this revelation fascinating. It is illuminating some very interesting observations about character and strength.

May the best person for the job win.

Cynthia McKinney is a loose cannon who could not get re-elected to congress. So now she is presidential material. All the press has to do is play her facing off with the capitol police and that is the end of Cynthia. She blames everybody except herself. Might as well stay home...

Here's Cynthia

Mary G J:

The loose cannon is McCain who is willing to bloody the world with his neocon fascist imperial strategy that already has killed over a million Iraqis, 3 million Vietnamese by Amerikan Empire. She is only called a loose cannon on small issues of misunderstanding, that did not result in the murder and overthrow of regimes by fascist thugs, neocons.

She is of course called a loose cannon by Zionists, who embrace the fascist policies of our imperial Empire, and AIPAC fielded their Uncle Toms, corporate, zionist "house slaves" to make sure there would be no criticism of Israels polcies. She came back and defeated that candidate, until she had enough of the corrupt class party, zionist thugs, neocon thugs in both the democratci and republican elites.

She is also running in the Green party, and I would consider switching to her if she gets the nomination, since Nader and Cythia both are opposed to the imperial policies, corrupt class parties, as she is younger. Someone mentioned that Nader has blood on his hands, and failed to point out it is the Democratic, neocons, zionists, liberal war hawks who have discredited themselves. Both Cynthia and Nader have not been party to this complicit proto fascism, imperial policy that produced an illlegal Iraq war, and nearly supported Bush's nuclear aggression with Iran, based on the same lies, because the democratic party is besmirched by the nationalist, imperial rot and support of Israel. Now they do have a lot of blood....and you could say the democratic party and its corporate polcies, corporate hacks, are LOOSE CANNONS.

I understand he is old but how does Barack's age suddenly make him the best candidate. Barack is not running on a platform of "I'm young so vote for me" he is running on a platform of CHANGE. When Barack is bought and paid for by the same huge corporations that John McCain and George Bush, Jr. and Sr. and Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton, have been taking money from how can any of them offer any REAL change? I would really like an answer to that if you could give me a legitimate one. The only way to get change is to get somone in office who DOES NOT take money from Big Business. Nader is one, McKinney is another, Kucinich was a third. But these candidates don't get exposure by the corporate media, and even if they do it is inevitably in a negative light, leading to comments about how Nader's age has something to do with his ability to run the country.

I did not say age makes him the best candidate. I said no more old, old men and definitely no loose canons like McKinney.

Mary GJ:

Adolf Hitler was young compared to Nader. Nader makes Obama look old, when comparing ideologies. He offers real alternatives, while Obama offers platitudes, and policies, class tyranny, imperial foreign polcies, that are older than Nader and himself. Now get past appearances and superficial arguments.

MaryGJ People over 42 are protected against age discrimination by law. Bush and Clinton both relatively young, both fouled the office beyond repair. Let's put a wise elder in, eh?

I said no more old, old men

Reagan was 73 in his second term win. Not a regretable performance either.

Not a regrettable performance? Hell, Reagan was showing evidence of Alzheimer's in 1985. If you don't consider the man that controls the nation's nuclear weapon stores having Alzheimer's I'd love to know what you consider tragic.

Reagan's admin was the most indicted of any in history. I'd say that's regrettable.

Last I heard Reagan was not impeached.

Nor was Clinton. There were proceedings, but he wasn't impeached.

I'll take a president getting a BJ over one saddled with Iran-Contra or the Iraq War anyday.

Clinton was impeached; he wasn't convicted. The 'proceedings' are the act of impeachment.

I sit corrected...I shouldn't post half-awake.

he will put REAL universal health (single payer system) back on the table.

That is, providing, that he can get more than 3% of the vote, which he can't. And that he can get Congress to work with him, which he can't.

If Nader really wanted to do some good for this country he would continue his great work as a consumer advocate and offer his services to the Democratic candidates as an adviser.

The only reason he CAN'T is because people like you believe he can't If everyone who said "I would vote for Nader but I don't think he can win" or "Why don't you vote for someone who you think can win" if all of them voted for Nader like they claim they want to, I think that Nader would get much higher than 3% of the vote. Democrats don't want Nader in office BECAUSE THEY ARE BACKED BY THE SAME BIG CORPORATIONS AS THE REPUBLICANS, NADER WOULD FIGHT AGAINST THOSE CORPORATIONS.

Democrats don't want Nader in office BECAUSE THEY ARE BACKED BY THE SAME BIG CORPORATIONS AS THE REPUBLICANS, NADER WOULD FIGHT AGAINST THOSE CORPORATIONS

Precisely.

Alexander why are you yelling at us? We don't want old man Nader nor old man McCain. Last time I checked Kucinich is backing Obama.

Lefitst:

Nader supported Kucinich, Gravels and Edwards over the corporate hacks. But no.....the American people prefer appearances, opportunistic civil rights manipulation, opportunistic gender, feminist positions, corrupt "bourgeois", middle class hacks over true anti war voices, pro impeachment voices, and the same old class order, imperial order, Amerikan Empire, fasicst foreign polcies, junior partners, neocons and Zionists rule this rot.

If Obama were to announce he would adopt the real change agenda of Nader, and came out for impeachment, war crimes tribunals, dismantling the proto fascist laws that democrats went along with, Nader would pull out and support Obama. That I am sure. He is no egomaniac.....He supported true democrats, true liberals but the American people are too stupid and divided to see this rot.

Eric, I think it's hard to know what the American people want when their selection is based on the candidates filtered in by corporate media. Kucinich had much greater support but people were convinced he couldn't win. He was marginalized in every debate. Many people wanted Kucinich but were persuaded otherwise.

That is, providing, that he can get more than 3% of the vote, which he can't. And that he can get Congress to work with him, which he can't

No...he won't get your vote ,Dennis,but he may well get mine ...and a lot of Hillary supporters.... should she not be the Democratic candidate. 3% you say? Think again.

So wait a minute - you'd rather vote for the man who has no experience in an elected office, who made his living as a consumer advocate, proves highly disorganized in campaigning, and who is somewhat distant from you preferred candidate than for the man who has been in elected office for twelve years, has run extremely well-organized and successful campaigns for state and national legislatures, as well as the Presidency, and who is nearly the ideological twin of your preferred candidate? What am I missing?

You're missing gp's quest for revenge verging on suicidal. To punish Obama for beating Hillary in the primary, gp will vote for a candidate clearly inferior to Obama. For, you see, the idea wasn't to get the best person for the job in the White House. It was to get Hillary Clinton in. Now that the unlikely event that she isn't going to make the cut has become a possibility, the only recourse that can be considered is being taken: keep her Democratic opponent out of the White House in favor of the man that wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. It's not about changing this country: this is personal. Now Hillary's cronies have trotted out Ralph Nader and his big-monied Republican backers have done their part. The drawing and quartering of Barack Obama has been prepared: all that is left is the simultaneous ass-smacking on the horses.

Last time I checked Kucinich is backing Obama.

You haven't checked in a while then. Kucinich simply asked his supporters to caucus for Obama in Iowa if they didn't meet the requisite amount of support. He has not backed anyone after suspending his campaign.

Dennis said:

That is, providing, that he can get more than 3% of the vote, which he can't. And that he can get Congress to work with him, which he can't.

And that's his fault? John Kerry couldn't win the presidency in 2004, so I guess in hindsight the Democrats shouldn't have bothered nominating anyone. Furthermore, I don't see ability to win as having any relation to strength of usefulness of convictions.

And you could just as well say "Congress would refuse to work with him," but you instead, through your word choice, blame Nader for the partisan bull@!$%#.

Here is my personal response to that. First of all everyone kind of considers that one vote is not necassary to get someone elected, basically your one individual vote doesn't matter, so why not just vote for who you want. If everyone votes for who they want then it can't lead to anything bad, only good. It would lead to a proliferation of differeing ideas which is good for democracy. Secondly I don't see the Democrats as really all that much better than republicans, they are funded by the same people so there isn't a huge difference anyway. Thats just my opinion.

ONe vote does matter - look at Bush winning FLorida in 2000 by 500 votes....

I too am conflicted. i want a cheeseburger

Thats still 500 not 1. If I had been 18 and living in Florida and voted for Gore (which I would have) it would not have changed the election. All I'm saying is one vote does not change elections so it makes sense that people should vote for who they want and not for who they think will win or Could win.

Those 500 votes are made up of one individual vote.

His passions may be in the right place, but his wisdom is lacking. In theory he's wonderful, but in reality millions of Americans suffer through the policies of Republican presidents and their court appointees as a result of his flawed logic and oversized ego. At this point he has no chance to win, he must realize his role will only be spoiler.

One should never underestimate the power of the masses. Especially against the prevalent backdrop at present. It is highly likely that his bid may simply split the votes and play into one side more. But, and it is a big but, if he does pull off something more potent, it may just be enough to pull power from the ridiculous two-party system that has done no one any favours for centuries. The power of many can be a very strong force. Throughout history, it has had small, innocuous beginnings.

The Art of War says that every battle is won before it is ever fought. This election has already been won, and Ralph isn't it. He'd have to have at least twice the pull he did in 2000 to force any kind of change, and he doesn't have any of that.

Good observation; you're probably right about the probability.

I just think so much has happened since 2000 (in every single way imaginable and many ways unimaginable) that it just may not be a benchmark to go by.

Think of it this way - do you grandparents, your neighbors, your cousins who are voting in an election for the first time... what does your average one of them know about Nader? Compare that to what they might know about Clinton, Obama, or McCain.

If he had a smaller ego and a bigger mind, the smarter move would be for Nader to work with the Democratic nominee, announce that he's heading up some commission on consumer/citizen rights, and effect change in that way. Doing it this way is just stupid - at "best" he'll get enough votes to help the Republicans win again, and at "worst" nobody will pay any attention to him in another week.

Wizeguy: I agree with you. We regularly flush our democratic vote down the toilet, with our stupid embrace of class ideologies, class parties and hence our long and growing disenchantment. Then when someone comes along to bring change, we call the vote "flushing down the toilet", as if our long history of class appeasement, know nothing history, has not itself been a total disaster.

stop wasting your vote. vote libertarian.

With no chance of winning, it's not wasting a vote, it's voting for McCain. That's just the reality of it. We may want the perfect plan, but let's get the better plan and work from there. It's oh so nice to be pure and scream from the sidelines about the imperfections of those who have to actually get elected nationally and try to make changes. Don't get me wrong, we need to point out the wrongs and work to make things right. But when the time comes, we need to know whether our own actions (and votes) contribute to the good or harm of those we want to help.

For those of you that want to flush your vote down the toilet. Here's your chance.

And if the toliet is better than the candidates offered? Flush in protest.

This coming from a Hillary supporter? That's rich. LOL

And if the toliet is better than the candidates offered? Flush in protest.

This coming from a Hillary supporter? That's rich. LOL

That's assuming she doesn't run...In any case I'm glad we had "a mutual moment", Scott.
It may be a long time again .. between drinks...so to speak.;-)

A vote for Nader is a vote for whoever wins the election, as he has no chance in hell of winning. Therefore, I expect the Nader voters to be quiet as dormice for the next four years: whoever wins is your candidate, and if you didn't want them in you had the chance to use your vote to see that they were not elected.

Yes, this means I hold Nader's supporters culpable for the fiasco in Iraq and the failures of Katrina: you voted for George Bush in reality, no matter what was going on in the fantasy world you apparently inhabit.

Whoever loses obviously never had any chance of winning. So, a vote for anyone is a vote for the winner and you have no right to complain. Lovely.

No, a vote for a viable candidate is not a vote for the winner. If Nader were polling anywhere near either of the two front runners, then the calculus changes. He doesn't. He's a useless protest vote for people that can't bear the fact that in a democratic republic, you have to compromise.

Ron Paul is much the same, although he does at least have a political resume. Nader couldn't get elected county dogcatcher.

Voting your conscience is not a vote for someone other than you vote for either. It's not a matter of numbers or polls. Nader is a useful vote for people who are happy that in a democracy you do not have to compromise your principles. Vote for whoever you think is best suited, as that is how democracy works. It is foolish to think that if the people voting for the Greens or the Libertarians weren't voting for those parties they'd be voting for the big two. If I couldn't vote for something I believed in I simply wouldn't be voting.

Nader is a useful vote for people who are happy that in a democracy you do not have to compromise your principles.

Yes, you do have to compromise, or live with the possibility that you will be getting someone who is even more at variance with your views. No Naderite can make a peep about W: they had the power to deny him the Presidency. Instead, they did not compromise their principles on a personal level, allowing the country as a whole to violate those same principles in some of the worst ways possible.

We simply disagree. I disagree with Democrats on 50% of the issues and Republicans on 50% of the issues. There is nothing for me to pick between them. Ron Paul had 73% agreement with my views. With him out, McCain and Clinton both have 46% agreement with my views and Obama 53%. Not worth my time voting for any of those people as I will object to all of them approximately equally if they're in office. There simply is no lesser of two evils for me when I look at a Democrat and a Republican.

People who voted for Bush put Bush in office, period.

Has a severe god complex. Assumes everyone else is wrong. Never listens to others. He would make a horrific president. Pretty much destroy government (and not put anything up in its place)

For a second there I thought you were talking about George Bush....

Megalomania seems to run many ways nowadays.

I am on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Greens and nanny-staters like Nader. I wasn't planning on voting for him. I have another choice, which is still not Democrat or a Republican.

There's the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Socialist Party, the Prohibition Party - there are lots of smaller political parties. Here is everyone who ran in '04: http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm and everyone running currently: http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

Oh yeah, how could I forget the Marijuana Party and the Vampires, Witches, and Pagans Party ;)

The party that matches my views. The same as everyone should.

Brian:
That's just your opinion of what people SHOULD do. Some people actually want their vote to count and vote in the according practical fashion of whomever best represents their beliefs and has a chance.

That's just your opinion of what people SHOULD do. Some people actually want their vote to count and vote in the according practical fashion of whomever best represents their beliefs and has a chance.

And all the people that used to be on two separate sides have been doing that for 40 years and are now identical to each other on most important issues. No thanks.

Suppose you are facing an election where hitler might win.

And? If his leading rival is Mussolini that isn't a viable choice either.

Suppose you are facing an election where hitler might win.

If that election comes up, then maybe we can talk about it, but that's clearly not the case here.

Which party favors open immigration to all non-criminals? Neither.
Which party favors drug legalization? Neither.
Which party favors gun rights? Republicans.
Which party favors a smaller government? Neither.
Which party favors a smaller military? Neither.
Which party favors limiting copyright law? Neither.
Which party favors reforming the patent system? Neither.
Which party is against warrantless wiretapping? Neither. Which party favors ending the Farm Bill? Neither.
Which party favors ending corporate welfare? Neither.

I don't see much to choose between there. I'm not moderate, but I'm not some crazy zealot either.

I'm glad you spelled it out for the blind.

Which party favors open immigration to all non-criminals?

Libertarian - to do otherwise would be incredibly hypocritical considering we stole this country from the indigenous people...

Which party favors drug legalization? Neither.

Libertarian.

Which party favors gun rights? Republicans.

Libertarian and anyone with a shred of common sense.

Which party favors a smaller government? Neither.

Libertarian

Which party favors a smaller military? Neither.

Libertarian

Which party favors limiting copyright law? Neither.

Don't really give a rip.

Which party favors reforming the patent system? Neither.

Don't really give a rip.

Which party is against warrantless wiretapping? Neither. Which party favors ending the Farm Bill?

Libertarian

Which party favors ending corporate welfare? Neither.

Libertarian

Which party would stand for Real change?

Libertarian, Independent and Green

Once again I dont know why you would want to simply 'eliminate' the military (or reduce it) without some reasoning or planning - doing so in a blanket way would be utterly disastrous for the nation and its safety, and incredible irresponsible

Right. Now that the USA spends over 50% of the ENTIRE WORLD'S spending on the military we are clearly in dire danger of being overrun at any moment.

I drifted into libertarianism from my views on drug laws and intellectual property, after finding that neither major party shares my views one bit.

i actually dont believe that is the moral thing to do. Suppose you are facing an election where hitler might win. Do you still vote for an obscure unrealistic hopeless party? Or do vote with the party that has the best chance of beating him and thus saving the nation from fascism?

So all it takes to get your vote is being better than Hitler? What a ridiculously low standard to hold your government to.

And that low standard is paying off, believe me.

if hitler is running, then YES. And would be ridiculous to not worry about that if hitler is running.

But is slightly better than Hitler really at all acceptable? If the choice is Hitler or Stalin, how can you really say either one is acceptable?

But that's precisely the situation you and the rest of the country are asking for when you tell one party "just worry about being more appealing than this one other party." Eventually the not-Hitler will become Hitler, because there is nothing you can do about it thanks to the fact that you're voting for a party independent of that party's actions.

I just want to say this again: PLEASE answer me. I'm DYING for an answer from someone on this. When you decide that all it takes is being better than one party for a party to get your vote, how can you POSSIBLY expect that party you're voting for to EVER be anything more than the second-worst party available. PLEASE explain the logic to me.

The answer CAN'T be that you've simply resigned yourself to life lived for you by the second-worst group of overbearing, greedy, dishonest politicians imaginable. That is just inconceivable.

andrew

Adam

my answer is that i dont see repubs vs dems as a choice between hitler and stalin. Its more like a choice between hitler and centrist stability.

*Right now* that may be the case. How do you expect it to stay that way? That's my question. If you really think the Republicans are Hitler, what's the incentive for the Democrats NOT to become Stalin if you're going to vote for them anyway. That is my question, and you still haven't answered it. Would you agree the Republicans and Democrats are more similar than they were even 10 years ago?

While i'm sympathetic to SOME libertarian positions,

I'm not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, if you are saying that to appease me.

I wont vote for libertarian parties who dont have a chance and risk getting a repub govt.

So instead you do the only thing you really can do to make sure your vote doesn't matter - you give a blank check, vote-wise, to a party or candidate. When your vote is not tied to a party's actions, you have nothing to use to encourage change. What would it take for you to not vote for the Democratic presidential candidate?

I'd rather push for reform from within the dem party apparatus and the nomination process.

This is another line of reasoning I've never understood. Here's what I'm reading here:

"I'm going to vote for change by electing my government leaders from the same pool of people over and over again."

Doing anything else is throwing away your vote

It's a sad day when people consider voting for the candidate you think best to be "throwing your vote away." Where does this self-consuming bull@!$%# end?

"Third-party candidates can't win because I won't vote for them. I won't vote for third-party candidates because they can't win."

The ONLY way this will change is if people realize THEY have the power that is the government, not the Clintons, Bushes, Roves and Obamas of the world.

allowing repubs who very much vote in 'blocs' to regain control of govt. And yes, repubs are far, far worse than dems.

Pretending there were a difference between them, I ask again - what's the incentive for the Democrats to maintain that difference?

Not at all. the repubs are FAR more right wing, to the point of having contempt for the democratic process itself.

Says a self-described Democrat on a Web site full of Democrats angry that someone else is running for president.

but for now they remain the only VIABLE party that comes close enough. Viability is crucial.

"Third-party candidates can't win because I won't vote for them. I won't vote for third-party candidates because they can't win."

The dems meanwhile moved into a more centrist position (which is good; they actually match my own centrism better now; they were too far left in the 70s). So the two parties remain as different as ever even if both are slightly different from their 70s versions.

Really? They both insist on shoving the US military in the face of the rest of the world. Neither wants to fund education. Neither is talking about the ridiculous way this country treats its drug users - and the obscenely overcrowded prisons that result. Neither is doing anything to bring health care to the masses - unless you count mandating insurance that doesn't do anything in the face of ridiculous health care costs.

Neither is at all interested in allowing third parties to share the stage - because it would mean sharing power and money. Neither is at all interested in investigating the illegal wire tapping authorized by the White House. Neither party is even open to the suggestion that the US government caters too much to corporations.

The Democrats will never tax the rich the way they should - so the effect is the same as under the Republicans, regardless of what the Democrats say. The Democrats in the past eight years have been just as caught up in religious bull@!$%# as the Republicans - even the golden boy.

Really, it pretty much comes down to abortion and ... gun control? I don't know. They don't seem all that different on the things that really matter.

but it IS tied to their actions. I'm making calculated decisions between viability and values. I think every voter needs to make those calculated decisions. Thats how one votes 'responsibly'.

This is not true. You yourself have said it - all it takes for the Democrats to get your vote is not being the worst political party in existence.

Another center-left party that become viable, i would consider. I would make the same decisions between values and viability though.

1) I wasn't aware such a party existed now.

2) What good is viability if it doesn't match your values?

as you yourself pointed out above, the parties shift all the time -- change is indeed possible from within the party apparatus. Each party is made up of multiple interest groups each pushing from within. And thats normal and good and helps direct the party in one direction or another. That is the intra-party process i'm talking about.

And by blindly voting for the Democrats regardless of what they do, you expect to reverse the recent trend of becoming Republican Lite. Good luck with that.

well, it is, by any measure.

I hate repeating myself:

So instead you do the only thing you really can do to make sure your vote doesn't matter - you give a blank check, vote-wise, to a party or candidate. When your vote is not tied to a party's actions, you have nothing to use to encourage change.

its not a catch-22 like that. thats a false argument. third parties have the responsiblity to BE that charismatic and politically effective - to SNOWBALL their chances. Its a mutual process of vialbility/values that nearly every voter out there makes (either conciously or not). and thats good. Its a good thing.

Without voters, no party in America will EVER reach your definition of "viability." The odds are completely stacked against them. They're not allowed in debates. They are not subject to equal air-time regulations. The media won't cover them. Ralph Nader has had about as much impact as one non-Democrat or non-Republican can have in the retarded way this country runs its elections. He's responsible for tons of good things, like OSHA, the Freedom of Information Act, and more, but he's also, just a little bit, dragged the Democratic Party slightly away from being corporate whores and into corporate @!$%#es territory. It's still not in the least bit acceptable from the Democrats, but at least Nader's trying.

But it's still not "viable" enough for you.

Vote libertarian. There's an EXCELLENT chance the Libs will WIN outright this year. This can happen if people get a chance to see the Candidates and realize immediately that they've been duped by wolves in sheep's clothing for a long, long time. It will not happen if people that the least resistance and only put their vote on a sure bet. That's just so wrong I can't believe I keep hearing people using this as an excuse not to vote for what the believe.

Nonsense, epi. This is wonderful news. I've already donated. Go Ralph, go!!

Bill @ 20.1

McCain seems on track to get the Repub nomination through divide and conquer strategies and you want more?

Why, of course. I fully subscribe to the adage that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Epiphany:

You are right, we have participated in a lot of silliness, stupidity, mindless support that resulted in the bloody messes, notice plural, from Vietnam to Iraq. The only silly and complicit bloody agency, is none other than its uninformed, misinformed, deformed middle layers, who have no history, no ideology to affect real change. They prefer the bloody policies of Amerikan Empire, supported by silly voters in the democratic and republican parties.

This is wonderful news. I've already donated. Go Ralph, go!!

As long as you have spare change and want to back an ideologue, you may as well contribute to my campaign for president. Like Nader, I have a snowballs chance of doing anything but mucking up the system.

Plus, being unemployed, I have plenty of time to devote to my campaign.

Contribute to the "Josh of Arc Fer Prez - 2008" Campaign

Yer Candidate,
-J

you may as well contribute to my campaign for president

A third link in the same seed for self-promotion suggests that not all Viners are familiar with this extract from the CoH...

Newsvine is for collaborative discovery and discussion of the news, not self-promotion.

A third link in the same seed for self-promotion suggests that not all Viners are familiar with this extract from the CoH...

Or a joke, in your case.

Or a joke, in your case

A joke perhaps the first time. After that, it reeks of desperation. In your case.

Raat ki Raani:
I don't think you understand that he is multiply whoring himself for his own campaign to make a statement about Nader and how selfish and self-centered the man is.

After that, it reeks of desperation. In your case.

I honestly laughed out loud at that comment, making Mrs. Of Arc ask "What are you laughing at?" Once I win the presidency^(*), she's gonna make a hella fine first lady!

-J

^{(*) I AM a white, bald guy, thus giving me an in with the disaffected portion of the GOP and the sexist and/or bigoted members of the Dems. Unless folks find out about the copious past drug use or atheistic secular humanist leanings(**), I am a shoo in!}

(**) Oops... Errr... I NEVER SAID THAT!

I don't think you understand that he is multiply whoring himself for his own campaign to make a statement about Nader and how selfish and self-centered the man is.

With the exception that the DONATE button actually works. I AM unemployed, after all...

Yer Candidate,
-J

Stop using my tax dollars for this silliness.

Do you have anything sillier in mind at the moment?
If not?....Go Ralphie!

F*** It.

I'm writing in either Celestina or Josh of Arc. I don't want to waste my vote.

Why don't you run together and save me the agony?

Prospero:

The democrats, liberal hacks do not want principle. They want partners in war, fascist police measures, shredding the Constiution, and hence they appease the Republicans.

Eric, I believe there are principled people in both parties trying to save the Republic. I believe that at this moment in history, there are more of them in the Democrat party, but I'm as disillusioned with them right now as you are. So what do we do? Where does hope lie?

Prospero:
Hope lies in not splitting up the one force that can stop another 4 years of Bush government channeled through McCain; apparently Nader didn't get the memo.

I'd rather piss rusty nails than vote for George W. Clinton.

Philochs:

Well said. It seems inconceivable that the Republicans coudl even run a candidate based on their criminal Nazis. The democrats should have this locked up......and if they don't, they can only blame themselves as they appeased Bush and his illegal policies, illegal aggression, illegal occupation, endless financing.....of the war....which most people voted against, only to have the democrats appease this fascism.