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.'"

Comments

Why?

[squiggleslash]

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?

Re:How many times?

[notnAP]

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.

Should we just call it now?

[TheQuantumShift]

I would love to see less of the two party system, but lets face it, Nader running an extended campaign will only take votes from Obama and give McCain the edge. (at least this time it's not Bush)

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.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[LithiumX]

Coalition governments seem to have a nasty tendency to break those coalitions, because they're not truly one government. They're parties agreeing to cooperate, under current circumstances, in a power sharing deal. I have long considered this to be one of the most delicate forms of democracy, only suitable for a fledgling government trying to find a final form.

For all the bickering, our two party system is effectively one government, but polarized largely along two artificial poles. What those poles are changes over time, but it's a constant adversarial system. It does not work very effectively, but it seems to do far better than most of what we see in the world.

Consider that we have (if I am right), the longest running continual government - only broken once, partially, by a civil war. That civil war managed to crystalize a new format that, for all of it's faults, was more manageable over the long term than the previous form, and managed to effectively stay the same model of government (but with the balance of power shifted in ways that not everyone likes). Even the UK, while still the same nation, has changed drastically in waves, and each new government that comes in is virtually a new government, whereas ours is designed - imperfectly - to make the transition of power between parties relatively mild and - in the end - of little relevance except to policy.

I'd agree with Washington that static parties are a generally bad idea. It promotes partisanship, and that partisanship is preventing us from having the government we could have. It is, however, far superior to a parliamentary system - a system that rarely seems to function as well as our own inefficiently adversarial model.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[Jafafa Hots]

The founding fathers thought a revolution every now and then was a GOOD thing. You seem not to like multiple parties out of some kind of distaste for the mess. Democracy is messy. There are different needs and wants and power structures and powerless constituencies out there, all constantly vying for a piece of the pie or all of it. There NEEDS to be give and take.

You talk about ONE government that lasts hundreds of years, finds a "final form" (is inflexible, doesn't adapt to newer times).

I can see how such a government would be desirable - to those governing. But how is that a good thing for the people?

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race?

[DarkFencer]

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).

Towing the party line on 90% instead of 100% of issues does not make one a liberal.

Re:How many times?

[Rei]

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.

If Clinton wins the D. nom, he should.

[Draconix]

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.

Re:If Clinton wins the D. nom, he should.

[Apiakun]

I understand your sentiment here, but I think that instead of stepping up and realizing that it's their own fault, they'll just happily blame Nader instead. It's always easier to blame someone else than to modify one's behaviour.

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race? No.

[tverbeek]

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.

Who doesn't have a clue?

[xealot]

A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. People like you are the reason why America is locked into a two party system, with only the choice between the lesser of two evils. I voted for Nader in 2000, and if he wasn't on the ballot I still wouldn't have voted for Gore, or Bush for that matter. My vote for Nader was not a vote for Bush, and I doubt many of the other were either. I have no trouble believing that there are 5% of voters in America who feel the same and would never vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate because it's obvious that they are both in the pockets of lobbyists.

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?

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[rpillala]

No one but Gore is to blame for Gore not being able to get enough votes.

Re:He is

[Original Replica]

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."

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[Jeff DeMaagd]

No one but Gore is to blame for Gore not being able to get enough votes.

I'd say that's probably the truth. If he could have carried his own state, he would have won.

Re:How many times?

[Valdrax]

Would you feel the same if he had won? No. I would've been quite happy if he'd won. Both he and Gore reflected most of my values. If we lived in a country with approval voting or IRV, I would've voted for the both of them. I actually almost *did* vote for Nader since I lived in a red state that was going to Bush anyway, but I thought that there *might* be a chance for Gore to pull the state.

He didn't cost the election. He provided an alternative to the Party. You speak like those are mutually opposed. The mathematics of the electoral college combined with the winner-take-all voting in most US states is the reason why a 3rd party candidate has *never* won the election. The only person to come in 2nd was Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party which split the Republican base and put Woodrow Wilson into office. Thurmond and Wallace almost cost Truman reelection, Ross Perot cost Bush the election to Clinton, and Nader gave New Hampshire and Florida to Bush.

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.

Not so fast my friend.

[OakLEE]

...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.

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.

Re:How many times?

[illegalcortex]

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.