BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: mrdux
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 12:26 AM

. . . the major difference being that Monica didn't seem to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:08 AM

This is from today's Baltimore Sun, and encapsulates the Nader Team pretty well:


Ralph Nader: It's not always about winning

by Mark Silva

For Ralph Nader, who won some crusades against corporate America as a consumer advocate, the political campaign is not always about winning.

He says he is running against "the real political bigotry'' of the two major parties that have "locked up the system.'' He says he is saying things that no one else is. And his campaign opens that door to the media that enables his words to walk through.

Nader – who collected 2.7 percent of the vote when he ran for president in 2000 and 0.3 percent when he ran in 2004 – says he will run again this year as an independent candidate.

But it's clear, from interviews with Nader since his announcement on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, that it's the candidacy that counts for him – and the ideas he espouses in his pursuit of a fractional share of the vote. Candidacies like that of Norman Thomas, the Socialist.

It is "important…to remember our history,'' Nader said in an interview aired by Sirius Radio on Monday. "Almost everything we like in politics started with a small party. Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party – he ran for president five times, he put forth social security, unemployment compensation, the progressive income tax, labor standards.''

Nader appeared on Ron Silver's daily call-in talk show on Indie Talk Channel 110, which bills itself as "an uncensored forum for independent thought and opinion.''

Nader's contention is that too much of his own thoughts are missing from the political campaign underway – and we've heard from no shortage of voters this week who agree with that, and support his notion that the two major parties leave something unanswered in American politics. So Nader runs again – not to win, but to voice.


The leading candidates are "not talking about the bloated wasteful military budget…which takes money away from repairing the public services in the country – the schools, the clinics, the highways, bridges, drinking water systems, sewage treatment systems that would create a lot of good jobs that could not be exported to places like China,'' Nader said Monday on Silver's show on Sirius.

"Obama, Hillary Clinton and McCain have not come out against nuclear power,'' Nader said. "Congress just recently put in $19 billion of loan guarantees for nuclear power plants. This is an industry that can not finance its nuclear power plants privately without having a guarantee from Uncle Sam, which indicates its lack of economic viability.''

Silver, saying he for one is "not afraid of more ideas,'' said "it's very curious that this country, which likes to pat itself on the back for being such a free marketplace of ideas, is trying to shut people down like Ralph Nader and other people making ballot access very difficult etc.''

"I couldn't have put it better,'' Nader said. "It's real political bigotry by the two major parties who have locked up the system with these ballot access obstructions against more voices and choices and giving voters a chance to have their free choice of candidates.

"The best ideas in American history have come from small parties: anti-slavery parties, women's right to vote, the labor farmer progressive parties in the 19th Century,'' he said. "They never won a national election, but aren't we glad they were there? And aren't we glad that some voters didn't go for the least worst between the Whigs and the Democrats?''

His vision of the challenge ahead: "It's basically to free the free market from the corporate destruction of capitalism. These giant corporations violate the rules of capitalism, which is: if you own it, you should control it. And millions of investors own these corporations, they're shut out, they can't do anything about management no matter how crooked or incompetent or bungling they are.

"The second rule of capitalism is: If you're about to fail, you have the freedom to fail. That's what small businesses do… go bankrupt, but big business goes to Washington, like Citibank and all these other companies that go in a variety of ways to be bailed out by the U.S. tax payer via Uncle Sam. So, that's why I think we have to make a distinction between giant corporations and small business….giant corporations use political power to disadvantage smaller competitors…''

Nader, who ran as the Green Party candidate in 2000 and an independent in 2004, said he probably will align with no party, but run as an independent.

He was asked his stance on foreign policy.

"Well obviously when we're attacked…and when there's an imminent attack…say like a missile or something, we have to defend ourselves,'' he said. "But militarizing foreign policy from the get go, brute force diplomacy… which is a contradiction in terms that Bush has engaged in, just creates more enemies, more people intent on sabotage...it's endangering our national security.

"I really agreed with Bill Richardson on the need for muscular diplomacy, the need to foresee and forestall, the need to become a humanitarian superpower which we can be so good at…dealing with infectious diseases and environmental clean-up.''

Posted by Mark Silva on February 26, 2008 7:33 AM | Permalink

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: DougR
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 05:20 PM

I emailed Ralph a note of encouragement. Told him that there is a Folk Music website populated, primarily, by Nader thinking souls. Suggested that he tune in to the website and solicit some donations. Haven't heard back from him yet. I didn't provide a blue clicky nor did I tell him the name of the website. Ralph should do some digging of his own.

I also suggested that if he needed a point man in Virginia, Bobert would be his man!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 10:02 AM

puerile adj 1: juvenile 2: childish, silly < - remarks>

puerilismn:childish behavior esp. as a symptom of mental disorder.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: Peace
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 11:37 AM

"I emailed Ralph a note of encouragement. Told him that there is a Folk Music website populated, primarily, by Nader thinking souls."

I too e-mailed Ralph and told him you'd send a thousand dollars. Nice of you, Doug. (Look at the sky and wear your hard hat.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: DougR
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 05:00 PM

Aw shucks. Now you two done gone and hurt my feelings. SOB!
DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 06:11 PM

Ralph and I go way back, Dougie...

I'm on his mailer list and will send him a few bucks...

I still have a few bumber stickers from last time, too...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 08:39 PM

"And his campaign opens that door to the media that enables his words to walk through."

Aye, there's the rub!

Most of what Ralph Nader says I agree with wholeheartedly. He and Dennis Kucinich are not that far apart. And look what the media—yes, the media (but certainly not disapproved of by the Democratic Party)—did to Kucinich.

One may hear Nader's message IF one knows where to listen for it or which web sites to go to. But I have yet to hear one peep about anything Nader says—or, for that matter, what Kucinich was saying—in the mass media.

One need not confine one's efforts to just one area of endeavor. Anything that would get what Kucinich and Nader are advocating out before the voters is something that I support. But that doesn't stop me from working with organizations like the Backbone Campaign, an organization that is implementing Thom Hartmann's ideas, going to Democratic Party meetings, backing people into corners, and kicking the occasional butt. Their drumbeat in the ears of the Democrats is a statement made by Harry S. Truman a few decades back:

"Given a choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, the people will vote for the real Republican every the time."

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, GiGi, have you notice that Ron Silver has recently decided that he is a conservative? Why, I wonder, is he interested in giving Ralph Nader a voice, other than to try to split the liberal vote?

P. S. S. Hell, Doug R. sees that clearly.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 12:12 AM

Yeah, I'm not reading the whole thing. Things to do. Glad Nader's running, though. Yanno, so I can vote for him. You friggin' sell outs. :)

Anyways, here's my favourite article on Nader so far:

----------------------------------------------------------

HOPE YOU CAN'T VOTE FOR

By Ted Rall

Ralph Nader Appeals to Disenfranchised Liberals

NEW YORK--"What," editorializes U.S. News & World Report, "does Ralph Nader bring to the political dialogue this year? Answer: nothing except for his own inflated ego." Dimestore psychoanalysis was the standard reaction to Nader's third third-party presidential bid. "An ego-driven spoiler," the Des Moines Register called him. "He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work," jabbed Barack Obama.

You see, other politicians who seek the presidency are like the Dalai Lama, humble and self-effacing. Obama and Hillary? Two sweeties. Not an ounce of ego between them.

Even our former colonial masters put in their two pence. Nader's "egotism and cult of left-wing purity has been an utter disaster for the values he affects to espouse," railed the UK Independent. Nader's values would fare better, apparently, were he to shut up and keep them to himself.

Is Ralph really a spoiler? To answer "yes," you have to buy three assumptions:

First, that the two-party system is written in stone. But it's not. There's nothing in the Constitution about two parties, or about parties at all. (The Founding Fathers were dismayed when parties emerged around 1800.) Besides, the Democratic-Republican stranglehold ill serves a diverse population of 300 million. Because parliamentary democracies offer voters a wide selection of parties representing almost every conceivable ideology, voter turnout in Europe typically exceeds 80 percent. In the U.S., most registered voters stay home.

Assumption two: voters ought to vote strategically, i.e., for the lesser of two evils. Even for those who accept this curiously alienating concept, however, evil often comes in pairs. Most citizens think the U.S. has lost more than it has gained under NAFTA; neither Obama nor McCain want to repeal it. Most people want the U.S. out of Iraq; both men have repeatedly voted to prolong the war. How shall anti-NAFTA, antiwar voters divine which will prove least anathematic as president? Should they resort to a ouija board?

The third leg of the Nader=Spoiler tripod relies on a belief that opinions espoused by a small minority of a population are inherently worthless. But, as anyone who has successfully gambled on a business can attest, today's fringe thinking becomes tomorrow's conventional wisdom. After 9/11, nine percent of Americans thought George W. Bush was a lousy president. Seventy-two percent feel that way now. America's greatest political achievements--emancipation, women's suffrage, the 40-hour work week--were first espoused by tiny voting blocs led by figures on the political fringe.

But that's not why Ralph says he's running. His platform seeks to promote causes that are popular with an overwhelming majority of American voters, yet have been sidelined by the two major parties and their allies in the media.

Fifty-five percent of Americans believe that Bush deserves to be impeached, according to a November 2007 American Research Center poll. (Considering Iraq, Guantánamo, domestic surveillance and torture alone, it's surprising the number isn't higher.) But "impeachment is off the table," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced as the Democrats recaptured Congress in 2006, and they haven't mentioned it since. America's pro-impeachment majority obviously can't expect Republicans to prosecute their own guy. Aside from most voters, only Ralph Nader wants impeachment proceedings against the "criminal recidivist regime of George Bush and Dick Cheney."

So who are the fringe weirdoes: the out-of-touch media elite, or the guy who agrees with most of the people?

The two remaining major Democratic presidential contenders think that repeatedly name-checking John Edwards is sufficient to draw votes from his liberal Democratic supporters. But liberals "don't like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama--for them, he sold out even before he was bought in," the Independent mocks. Only Nader offers "left-wing purity."

And what's wrong with that?

While McCain, Obama and Clinton repeatedly vote for funding the Iraq War, at the same time calling for expanding the war against Afghanistan--a doomed effort that was lost years ago--Nader wants to slash defense spending, the number-one cause of our skyrocketing federal deficit.

Americans favor "socialized medicine" (43 to 38 percent, says the February 14th Harris poll); only Nader agrees with them. Nader would repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, which destroyed labor unions; the other candidates haven't said squat about the single biggest reason real wages are shrinking.

What's wrong with that, say Democratic Party officials, is that Nader's first run attracted 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000. Nader drew support from liberals who didn't think Al Gore had enough "left-wing purity."

"This time I hope it doesn't hurt anyone," said Hillary. Nader "prevented Al Gore from being the 'greenest' president we could have had."

Maybe the Dems and their pundit pals ought to get their story straight. If Nader's "left-wing purity" is so fringe and wacky, how can he hurt them?

----------------------------------------------------------

---Will

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 12:31 AM

Okay, I admit, I have not read all the posts here. Because, I got stuck at this, and my head nearly exploded...

"many of them think that the two major parties *should* be able to shut out everyone else, in order to insure their major party candidates will win"

The emphasis on "should" is mine, and the statement is utter horse crap. Substitute "are currently" for "should", and you turn weasely, straw man, Bush-aiding, pseudo-idealism into reality.

Go ahead Nader people. Cling to your idealistic claptrap (which, BTW, I support), and ignore the reality of what actually happened in 2000, and what you might cause in 2008. Hide behind your fantasies (which, BTW, I support -- and work for daily -- 100%), and ignore the real world.

Parents and other grown-ups know the difference between what SHOULD be, and what CAN be. (Sorry, this is not shouting, honestly, I just don't know html or whatever it takes to italicize). I work my ass off for what SHOULD be, but am not willing to sacrifice that ass due to what, realistically, at this point in history, CAN be.

Nader Voters: Please grow up. And stop treating those of us who oppose a Nader candidacy as enemies. We are on the same team, but we have (in our humble opinions) realistic goals. Yours are laudable, but accomplish exactly the opposite of what we, and you, want.

I would love to fly, but will not step off the parapet of the umbrella factory. But don't you dare tell me that you are the only one who craves wings.

Rant over.

Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: TIA
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 12:50 AM

Oops, substitue "are currently" for "should be".
Grammar counts.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 07:15 AM

I think it quite positive that Ralph Nader can draw from both the right and the left, conservative and liberal, red and blue, Democrat and Republican, in his quest to break the hold of tyranny over this country the duopoly has created.

You see, political organizers of the non-partisan stripe know that in order to actually accomplish something like getting the government to change the way it conducts itself, or get big business to change it's way of doing business--you have to be able to bring together people of all sorts of political philosophies and ideologies.

That's why neither Republicans or Democrats are able to do much these days. It's a stalemate. The system is deadlocked. More and more voters are being locked out, sure. But as Nader points out--the best candidates are locked out too.

When 6 Republicans voted to override the Republican MN governor this week to finally pass a transportation bill (after years of him refusing to sign or vetoing it), the governor had them stripped of their party leadership positions.

I am proud of those Republican legislators for standing up to those 'no new taxes' bullies, and finally having the courage of their convictions so they can say they voted their conscience, instead of their partisanship.

You see, there is hope for us all when even just a few people stand up and speak truth to power. It may lose those Republicans their seats this fall--everyone of them is up for re-election--but they did the right thing. Most of our state legislators aren't career politicians in the national sense (most notable exception is our governor, who has eyes on the White House). They are public servants in the traditional sense. I was very proud of those Republicans for their courage, ang for putting the good of the people and the state before the partisan interests of their club. Very proud.

Now, there are folks who will always say that voting for Nader goes against our ideals and values as 'liberals'. My first answer is always 'don't assume I'm a liberal'. The second is: 'who the hell do you think you are telling me how to vote?'

Yeah, it should be a free country in that regard. I've always voted for the candidates who earn my vote, not that demand my allegiance to their party.

It is getting to the point where the Democrats are gonna start demanding we sign loyalty oaths, fer chrissake.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: DougR
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 03:06 PM

GUEST, guest: I wouldn't count on Ralphie getting many Republican votes. Mebbe some Democrats though...

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 06:38 PM

If you ever woke up out of your political dream world, Doug, you wouldn't vote ever again for either a Republican or a Democrat. They are both morally and ethically bankrupt parties, and they have betrayed your constitutional heritage time and time again.

They're a joke in the rest of the world, although the Republicans are a bigger joke at this point. That's mainly because the Democrats haven't been in power for the last 8 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 07:40 PM

Doug, in 2000, roughly 25% of the voters who went for Nader self-identified themselves as Republicans in exit polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: mrdux
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 11:58 PM

That's certainly one way of looking at the statistics, and not inaccurate (although I came up with a figure closer to 20%). On the other hand, another way to look at them, according to the CNN
2000 Exit Polls, is that only 1% of the voters who identified themselves as Republicans said they voted for Nader, compared with 2% of those who said they were Democrats and 6% of the independents. In light of which, Doug's observation -- "I wouldn't count on Ralphie getting many Republican votes" -- seems pretty accurate: 1% isn't many.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 08:29 AM

Nor is 2% many. Although, according to my stellar math calculations, I see that according to your formula, we can determine that twice as many Democrats as Republicans voted for him.

And if Nader hadn't been in the race, that 1% of Republican voters would have gone to Bush, along with at least a few of those indies, which means Bush would have legitimately defeated Gore in 2000!

Whoopee! Don't ya love doin' the numbers!

The point is this. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican, and I don't owe my vote to the Democratic party just because they say I do.

Homey don't play dat tune.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 08:55 AM

The numbers for 2000 are history...

The Dems ***need*** Nader this time around... He will keep the most progressive issues, especially corporatism, globalization and the utter unfairness of our tax system that is so squewed toward the wealthy...

This won't hurt Obama... It will help Obama... That is, if Obama gets the nod... It won't help John McCain onhe bit because John McCain is a corporatist stooge...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 04:15 PM

But the 2% of Dems who voted for Nader probably would have voted for Gore, so. . . .

If you're going to do statistics, GiGi, you really need to look at all the numbers, not just pick the ones you think will prove your point.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Enters Presidential Race
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 09:44 AM

Which is what the '2000 was Nader's fault' sore losers (like you, for instance Don) do all the time. You cherry pick some numbers (like the 2%, for instance Don), and ignore the others--like 1% Repubs, 6% indies--it is the factoring in of the indie numbers you ALWAYS ignore, which is just another way of you ignoring the reality that those of us who are independent can swing an election.

You don't like that fact, do you Don? Well, tough. I, and one third of my state's voters aren't beholden to your brand name politics that are destroying our nation and our world.

You just hate the fact that you can't bully us into voting YOUR way.