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.'"
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.
Yup - don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul. :-)
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.
Nader has run for President four times (in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004), and is currently considering running in 2008.[1] In 1992 he ran as a write-in in both the New Hampshire Republican and Democratic primaries, and other primaries. In 1996 and 2000, he was the nominee of the Green Party; in 2004, he ran as an independent, but was also endorsed by the Reform Party.[1] His campaigns have been controversial, with his role in the 2000 election in particular being subject to much analysis and debate.[2]
He appeared on the cover of Time magazine in 1969 for his role as a consumer advocate.[3]
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
Towing the party line on 90% instead of 100% of issues does not make one a liberal.
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.
Is Ross Perot going to run again too? I miss that guy.
less likely after realizing last month that obama is not a muslim: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Perot_pleasantly_surprised.html
whether he likes it or not. He won in California, the state with the most delegates, by 60%. They have over 100 while all other states have 4 to 16. In states where he can't be on the ballot in the Green primaries, they have someone from the Draft Nader committee, who will presumably tell his delegates to all vote for Nader. What happens if he wins, but doesn't run? He essentially gets to single-handedly pick the Green nominee. In second place is Cynthia McKinney, a former Democrat member of the House of Representative and the Green running with the most political experience, but nearly all media attention she's received is for striking a security guard with her first after being caught running through the halls without the badge identifying her as a Congresswoman, and also saying "Al Gore's Negro tolerance level isn't very high. He only has one Negro around him at maximum at all times." As someone earlier mentioned, the Green Party weirdly doesn't seem fond of Al Gore. In third place is Kat Swift, whose main political experience is being co-chair of the Texas Green Party and coming in 2nd place for city council. Get this---while running for president, she's also running for city council! Just because it's a third party, doesn't mean it's better than the two in power. The Green Party seems to be the only third party tracking how many delegates each candidate has, but I saw while researching third parties that in Minnesota, all Constitution Party candidates available in their caucuses were Republicans or Democrats, minus one guy I'd never heard of with 2.5% of the vote, and Ron Paul won with over 80%, despite saying he would not run on a third party ticket. The Constitution Party, from their website, looks like the Republican Party without support for the Iraq War or warrantless wiretapping or anti-drug laws, but they mention Jesus in the preamble of their platform. It's pitiful that 2 out of 3 of the third parties the media ever talks about seem to be in favor of people that are not running. Also, I'm new here, so be nice.
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/
Before he ran for president the first time, all I really knew about Ralph Nader was that he appeared on Sesame Street once long ago.
During his run for president (both in 2000 and 2004), I learned a little more about him here on Slashdot. 90% of what I read here was negative.
I was deceived -- the reality was that 90% of the comments I read here on Slashdot were just gross oversimplifications and instances of senseless finger-pointing.
What changed my point of view? Just one thing: an Independent Lens documentary, "An Unreasonable Man".
After watching that documentary, I still don't know if Ralph Nader would have made (or would make) a good president. Instead, what I do know is that I'm sorry I took most of the Slashdot comments back in 2000 and 2004 as a good source of information. Ralph Nader has been unfairly dragged through the mud by many, and by some has been blamed for everything they care to believe went wrong with American leadership over the last 8 years. From some of the comments I'm reading here, it seems there's still a lot of unfair hostility aimed at him.
If you have the opportunity to watch that documentary, do so. It might create a more complete picture of the man for you, as it did for me.
Whoever designed level 61 in Frozen Bubble is a sadistic bastard.
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.
That's for sure. Already, 10.3% of all homes are "under water" on their mortgages. Its expected that between 30% and 50% will end up tht way before we get to the bottom of the trough. The US could be in for a Japan-style meltdown, with at least a decade lost.
This will sideswipe the worlds' economy.
Already, there's a question of whether several German state banks, who hold billions in US toxic mortgage paper, will be forced into bankruptcy.
That's what happens in a global economy where lying ratings agencies give triple-a ratings to junk in return for fees.
No one but Gore is to blame for Gore not being able to get enough votes.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
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.
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.
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").
The other way is to get constitutional reforms passed which change how elections work. Good luck getting that to happen. That would require the help of at least one of the two existing parties and I don't see that happening.
So, the only purpose of a 3rd party is to draw votes from another party. Deciding to run in a 3rd party does not mean you're presenting a 3rd choice. It means that you're attempting to draw votes from the major party that agrees with you the most.
I don't like it. I very much wish we could alter the system to allow people to vote with some sort of multi-vote system as in I like person #1 but if they don't win then I prefer person #2. There are a variety of other voting schemes, any one of which would probably be better.
But, there is only one possible outcome of another Nader run. That is to draw votes away from Obama. If Nader runs and McCain wins then Nader bears the blame just like he bears the blame for getting Bush elected.
The only real possibility that I see for change is to push to get the primaries opened up more. That is where we have real choice. The primaries are corrupt in many ways. There are plenty of very undemocratic issues in the primaries for both major parties. That needs to change and it's the only way that change can occur.
Cow Cube
... let me point out several things you appear to have overlooked.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5. Gore lost Tennessee and Arkansas. His own home state. Clinton's home state. 'Nuff said.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
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.