Slashdot Mirror
Ralph Nader Might Announce Run For President
SonicSpike writes "According to the AP, Ralph Nader could be poised for another presidential campaign. Nader will appear on NBC's 'Meet the Press' tomorrow to announce whether he will launch another White House bid. Nader kicked off his 2004 presidential run on the show. Kevin Zeese, who was Nader's spokesman during the 2004 presidential race said, 'Obviously, I don't think Meet the Press host Tim Russert would have him on for no reason.'"
The problem with the US being that if their economy folds, so does a lot of others. Huzzah!
Is it too likely that a Democrat might win this time?
Hey, remember when he stood in 2000, with the full support of the Green movement, because, wait for it, Al Gore wasn't an environmentalist?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This could get VERY interesting (as if it hasn't been already) if both Nader and Bloomberg both run as separate 3rd parties. Since both are liberals it might divide up the Democrat vote enough to give a win to McCain (who is also a liberal).
:-(
For those of us who want smaller government, lower spending, less taxes, individual rights, personal liberties and freedoms, etc we don't have a choice anymore
Libertas in infinitum
Agreed, especially considering his allure is strongest on the far left and the independent democrats. If Obama wins the nomination, I'd think - and, I have to admit, hope - that Obama would not lose many votes, considering his allure is so strong among those same voters. Hillary as well would probably not lose many votes.
I think it's a damned shame our political system does mean a vote for Nader is effectively a vote for the Republican party. I also think it's a shame Nader's got to run for president just to further his causes. Having survived a head on car collision earlier in my life, I have to wonder if I'd still be alive if it weren't for his efforts. I don't tend to think the automotive industry would have up and improved themselves on their own. That said, I'd really rather not see the democratic vote split again.
Someday I hope we can get beyond the "I belong to this party" mentality. To me there should only be one party, American Citizens. Candidates step up and state what they actually believe and what direction they want to take the government, and are judged by the voting public on those merits alone. Hell, we can even do it American Idol style and text our votes each week.
Though I have noticed in the last few years the lines between the parties blurring quite a bit (excepting the childish displays during the State of the Union). I wonder if we could find someone who's never been exposed to any of the contenders and see if they can guess the party affiliation and what they stand for.
Shift happens. Fire it up.
And we all know that Nader is going to run another, "Both parties are the same even though they vote the opposite" campaign.
Perhaps he and his supporters expect *every* Democrat to vote the same on *every* issue? Because that's usually what his campaign speeches come down to. Never mind that the vast majority of Democrats, on a given issue, side with him, and that compromises are almost always made only due to pressure from Republicans. No, because all don't fall in lockstep with his views, both parties are clearly the same.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
If Obama gets it, Nader probably won't get much support anyway, but if Clinton gets it, he'll probably get enough support to hurt the DNP in the general election, and frankly, the DNP needs a massive smack upside the head. They need to learn to stop fielding candidates the people can't get behind. Gore was too robotic, Kerry was too wishywashy, and Clinton is too ambitious and unscrupulous. Maybe, just maybe, if Clinton runs and Nader "steals her votes" the party might just get a frigging clue.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
Bloomberg's not getting into this race. Unlike Nader, who's motivated by a kind of principled idealism that places the outcome as a secondary consideration, Bloomberg's interest in running for president is calculated, to win. If the GOP were nominating a religious fanatic, he'd be able to draw enough secular conservatives to do well, but with McCain getting the GOP nomination, the constituency just isn't there for him. So he'll sit it out.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Charisma without specific details is much more attractive to the cult-leader-seeking American public than dullness filled to overflowing with specific details about proposed changes.
If Nader enters the race, he will bring media focus to bear on the vagueness of speeches by Barack Hussein Obama.
This is the man who put George Bush in the White House, by getting a small number of votes in the closest Presidential election in American history. Nader needs to give it up.
This seems to be a rather popular position. It embodies a rather dim view of Nader-nee-Dem supporters, unable to foresee Nader's inability to win, yanking the lever for their man, ignorant of the consequences. I don't think so. Your average voting, bipedal primate is wickedly good at applied game theory and certainly able to understand the two party situation endemic to presidential elections in the U.S.A., and the consequences of a third party vote.
I could get behind "Occasionally, a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.", but anything more than that is overstating the case, as the joker voting for Nader knows damn well what he is doing, so you can't really assume that they would have voted democratic without Nader in the picture.
Stated another way: If people who voted for Nader were interested in making sure McCain did not win, they would vote for the Democratic party candidate, rather than Nader. That they vote for Nader indicates that they could give a flip about the choice between the major candidates, so it is a bit of a stretch to assign them either way.
A vote for Nader is...a vote for Nader(and all that stands for), unless you think the person voting is a blithering moron.
I've never voted for Nader, and I've voted both Democratic and Republican in presidential elections, so let's not make this about me.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I'm sorry, but as a geek I'm only going to vote for someone with an ounce of intelligence and common sense, not the one who needs the votes to beat the greater of two evils. Nothing is ever going to change unless the greater population of the US realizes that professional politicians, regardless of party, are all the same. If you don't vote for who you actually want to win what is the point of living in a democracy, why not move to China?
--Drive carefully. 90% of people are caused by accidents.
Would you feel the same if he had won? He didn't cost the election. He provided an alternative to the Party. Something the country desperately needs. Besides, I can guarantee you that Lieberman is every bit as evil as Cheney. THAT'S what cost the democrats the election.
What?
Nader has done more good for this country than Gore (or most others in politics.)
But in securing Dubya's win he did enough harm to over shadow all the good he has done. It's a safe assumption that if Nader had not run, that the vast majority of those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, and Gore would have won Florida and the election. Sure 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan may well still have happened, but the Iraq war and the abuse of signing statements and Gitmo and the DHS and the Patriot Act 1&2 and wiretapping would not have happened under Gore. Nader has done a lot of good, but also a lot of damage, he should get back to doing good instead of following his ego and "paving the road with good intentions."
We are all just people.
The difficulty of libertarianism is not "I must be free"; but "That other jerk must be free as well." Ha! Ain't that the truth!
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Nader cost Gore the election by taking away a larger margin of liberal voters than Bush won each of those states by. If either state had gone to Gore, we wouldn't have had this bunch of yahoos in office when the planes took off on September 11th, and this country might still be respected in the world. At the very least a consumer advocate like Nader wouldn't have managed to let Bush put foxes in all the henhouses in Washington, thus directly curbstomping the very cause that made him famous. Besides, I can guarantee you that Lieberman is every bit as evil as Cheney. THAT'S what cost the democrats the election. Oh, Lieberman's a political opportunist and quite a bit of an old-school neocon (as in the pre-Reagan sense), but there are some huge degrees of difference there, and I can't imagine him wielding anything like the unprecedented power and influence that Cheney has as vice president, which has largely been a ceremonial role in the past.
Also, I'd like to see you back up the "Lieberman cost the election" theory. The numbers on Nader's influence in NH & FL are easy to find, but I'd like to see some numbers on Lieberman. I can't imagine that that many people were terribly influenced by him.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Oh, great, Russ Nelson, self-claimed "angry economist" replies to me with doublethink: "control creates uncontrol". That's a gem.
/really/ want "uncontrolled greed" running everything? Do you? Are you actually Gordon Gecko?
Listen, Russ, I'm a capitalist _and_ a socialist. I strongly believe in market economies. I also believe in a welfare state and decentralized planning in economies. Those are controls on a capitalist economy that are really what have enabled the poor in western countries to not be so poor as most centrally-managed economies. Stick your head in the sand all you want and try to disagree, but at least don't spout contradictory assertions like you did here. I'm a strong supporter of national single-payer health care implemented at the local level, managed by doctors, medical service delivered in private practice (I used to work for a 20-doctor medical group), as well as a national minimum income for the destitute and the culturally artistic who can contribute to our creative commons. That won't destroy our economy. That's just being nice. I make a six figure salary and want to make sure people who aren't as gifted as I am have the benefits of modern society as well, since everybody's taxes help support the road network that spatial software (which I write) operates on. Maybe you don't -- perhaps that also separates us. I also ride my bike to work when it makes sense (which turns out to be most of the time). If I got a minimum income, one thing's for sure, all my software would be open source (not just what I can afford to open up). All the private businesses that want to make more than the minimum income would be able to use all that infrastructure for free -- I think that would be a very cooperative arrangement.
At no point, though, would I take anybody's right to do business in a private capacity, or even to do pretty much whatever they wanted. Sometimes, though, we recognize that certain behaviors are not only unethical, but inherently bad enough that we should protect consumers.
You're probably going to ridicule income taxes as immoral at some point, as they fuel a national minimum income. But seriously, though, what's fundamentally wrong with progressive taxation? You had to give a little back to the society that enabled you to aggregate its wealth? You would overthrow the government for trying to redistribute wealth in rather light moderation? Listen Russ, the rich are rich enough everywhere the rich are. They don't need another jacuzzi, and it's not a "human rights" issue that we'll force you to share. It's an issue of human decency. If you really don't want to share, leave the U.S. and go to a Banana Republic or an island nation you can buy where human decency is not a concern.
But back to uncontrolled capitalism -- even you must acknowledge that there must be limits to capitalism -- no murders, for example. Should we buy and sell murdering? Taking your rights away when you murder somebody is totally cool in your book, yes? "free market" capitalism is just a meaningless word, Russ. What's "free" is what's at issue for most capitalists (you and me included). Or do you
And I know you're probably going to say that the distinction between murder and income taxation is that murder is infringing on the rights of the person murdered. That's a great distinction, but it's arbitrary, Russ. It also doesn't work. If the poor aren't allowed to participate in the economy and buy your shit, then who's left to benefit? Who's able to buy from you? If only ten people control all the wealth, they only end up trading with themselves, and the rest are left behind. The question, then is, who should be left behind? Fundamentally, a totally "free" market, even with the libertarian distinctions on freedom and constraint, implies that the poor should be left behind. I think that's a moral issue that conflicts with your arbitrary definition of "rights". The right to be sheltered and fed could very well be a "right" that when integrated
Instead of directing your distaste for those who voted for Nader, you direct it to those who voted for Bush. They put him into office, not the Nader voters. And Lieberman has his name all over patriot act in case you have any doubts about him. His vote for that(and his authorship of same), the war, the military commissions act show he's no different from the goons in the white house and their staff. You don't need to imagine anything. His record speaks for itself. And his relationship with Obana is a little too chummy for my tastes. And now he and McCain will make a fine pair. Rest assured Gore would have lead us down the same path that we are on now. Nader was the only hope for anything different, and the same applies if he runs now. The other three are joined at the hips.
What?
Yah just like the DMCA, Defense of Marriage Act, Telecom Reform Act, and Communications Decency Act (Source) would never have been enacted had Bob Dole or Bush I been President?
It's too easy to speculate now since hindsight is 20/20, but remember that the majority of the PATRIOT Act power grab provisions were enacted on recommendation of the Justice Department, and had been provisions which the DOJ had been trying to get enacted for years.
Let us also not forget that the Clinton Administration signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act, which established "regime change" in Iraq as the official US position, and pretty much gave George W. Bush the legitimacy he needed to start a serious dialog on invading. In fact, that law was enacted to provide cover for the Clinton Administration to engage in Operation Desert Fox in Iraq (a very popular move a the time).
The point of the story here is not so much to lay blame on any particular person here, but remind everybody that politicians whose horizons really only stretch as far as the next election will do really stupid things if they think it can score them some brownie points with their constituents.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
Let's say I drive recklessly and wind up with my car precariously perched on the edge of a bridge, front two wheels off and the car seesawing a bit. It's 100% my fault and I shouldn't try to avoid the blame. But then this guy comes along and nudges the bumper, sending my car over the edge and into the river. It's still ultimately my fault, but that guy - that guy is a total dick.
1. Gore won. There is no question that Gore won the popular vote. It was our outdated (and I question whether it was ever in date) Electoral College for the highly improbably but all-too-real situation where the candidate who came in second might actually win.
Gore lost. That isn't the first time that has happened, and discrepancies between popular vote and electoral results occurs sometimes in the first-past-the-post electoral system.
Gore lost under the electoral college system which has been in place for centuries. The electoral college reflects the fact that the president is elected by the United States of America, which is why Puerto Rico and Guam don't vote for president. If you don't like the rules, then go change the constitution (good luck). Clinton/Gore won under those same rules in 1992 & 1996. I didn't hear any complaining then. Suck it up and stop whining.
2. Gore won. The Supreme Court cut off recounts at a very convenient time for the son of the man who put several of them there. So much for the balance of powers.
Gore lost. The Supreme Court cut off recounts because they were being conducted in a manner that was unconstitutional. Only districts that were presumed to be under-counted supporters of Gore were being recounted. If you want to have a fair recount in Florida, you need to recount all the ballots state-wide, which might have led to higher vote totals for Bush. Incidentally, some of the Supreme Court justices were put there by Clinton.
3. Voter disefranchisement. African Americans were presented with many obstacles to voting, as has been well-documented in Florida in 2000, and in Ohio in 2004. As much as I'd personally like to think they were there to vote for Nader, the fact is, they overwhelmingly supported Gore (Kerry). And I'll just mention the difficulties people had with the ballots in passing. All these are, of course, merely emblematic of systemic problems in all 50 states, plus our assorted territories.
Voter disenfranchisement & fraud isn't unique to Florida, and has often occurred in favor of democrats.
4. Gore lost Florida fair and square.
4a. There were a string of other third parties on the ballot, mostly on the left, who presumably "took votes from Gore." Can you name them? Did you know they added up to more than 534 votes?
4b. Vastly more registered Democrats voted for Bush than total people voted for Nader. Reread that sentence as many times as it takes.
4c. There is no -- I want to make this very clear -- no reason to presume had Nader not been on the ballot in 2000, his would-be voters would hae automatically gone to Gore. That's sheer arrogance. A handful would have, yes, but a lot would have gone to other leftist parties, a number would have gone Libertarian, and an awful lot would have abstained. Notice: please do not respond merely to the word "handful" outside the larger context of this message. Thank you.
You also forgot Pat Buchanan. He got more votes than Nader, and "presumably" those votes would have gone to Bush.
5. Gore lost Tennessee and Arkansas. His own home state. Clinton's home state. 'Nuff said.
So? He wasn't very popular in those states. Maybe you noticed that public opinion changes from time to time. Hard to say why. Were voters in those states upset by the legacy of slick Willie? Lying under oath? Cheating on his wife? Tipper Gore's (Al's wife) war against "obscenity" in music movies? Maybe they wanted a more Christian president? Hard to say why.